ATTENTION: In accordance with section 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, publication of the identity, or any information that could disclose the identity of students who were a witness or the subject of evidence in this hearing is prohibited.

DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Labbé 2018 ONOCT 19

Date: 2018-03-26

IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and Ontario Regulation 437/97 thereunder;

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Lorraine Labbé, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Sara Nouini, OCT, Chair

Marie-Thérèse Hokayem

Stéphane Vallée, OCT

BETWEEN: ) Christine Lonsdale and

) Charlotte-Anne Malischewski,

) McCarthy Tétrault LLP,

) for the Ontario College of Teachers,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Annie Lacroix,

) Law Clerk

– and – )

LORRAINE LABBÉ ) Lorraine Labbé,

(CERTIFICATE #277149) ) representing herself

) Renée Kopp,

) Jones Litigation Counsel LLP,

) Independent Legal Counsel )

) Heard: April 26, 27 and 28, 2017

) and June 23, 26 and 27, 2017

DECISION ON FINDING AND REASONS FOR DECISION

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on April 26, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated August 7, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Lorraine Labbé (the “Member”), requesting her attendance before the Discipline Committee of the College on September 8, 2015 to set a date for the hearing. The hearing was subsequently set for April 26, 2017 and continued on April 27 and 28, 2017 and June 23, 26 and 27, 2017.

ORDER OF NONDISCLOSURE

In accordance with subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), the Committee made an order prohibiting the publication of the identity, or any information that could disclose the identity of students who were a witness or the subject of evidence in the hearing. The names of the students involved in the matter will therefore be anonymized in this decision.

SUMMARY

At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Nouvel-Ontario (the “Board”) as a teacher. The College submits that during at least three school years (2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2012-2013), at three different schools, the Member’s conduct was unprofessional and failed to maintain the standards of the teaching profession. The College’s allegations include that the Member shouted at the students, sometimes in their faces; that she made several of her students cry; that she was intimidating and brusque with her students; that she made inappropriate comments to students; and that she failed to inform the school principal immediately concerning the absence of a student who had run away from the school during a blizzard and could have been at risk. The parents and students complained about the Member numerous times, and the teacher had several meetings with the schools’ principals and was investigated several times by the Children’s Aid Society. Despite these interventions, the College maintains that the Member’s conduct failed to improve.

The Member denied all of the allegations in the Notice of Hearing and represented herself at the hearing.

For the reasons which follow, the Committee finds that the facts give cause for a finding of professional misconduct and finds Lorraine Labbé guilty of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19), as set out in the Notice of Hearing. The College failed to prove that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and this allegation was therefore dismissed. Sentencing has not yet taken place and the Committee will hear the submissions on penalty at a later date.

ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated August 7, 2015 are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Lorraine Labbé is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of 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 abused a student, or students, verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

(c) she abused a student, or students, physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);

(d) she abused a student, or students, psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);

(e) 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);

(f) she committed an act or omission 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);

(g) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Lorraine Labbé is a member of the College in good standing.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil scolaire de district catholique du Nouvel-Ontario as a teacher.

3. During the 2009-2010, 2010-2011[1] and 2012-2013 school years, the Member made inappropriate comments and engaged in inappropriate actions including, but not limited to, the following:

(a) she raised her voice to and/or shouted at the students

(b) she shouted in Student 1 and Student 2’s faces

(c) she made several students in the class cry

(d) she was intimidating and/or brusque with the students

(e) she pulled Student 2 by the arm and/or made inappropriate comments to the student

(f) she hit Student 3 on the back of the head

(g) she turned Student 4 around by the shoulders

(h) she steered Student 3 to her desk by the wrist

(i) she failed to inform the school principal immediately of Student 5’s absence.

4. The Member resigned from her teaching position with the Board on June 30, 2015.

MEMBER’S PLEA

The Member denied all of the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

THE EVIDENCE

During the hearing, the College called nine witnesses: (1) Darquise Moreau; (2) Pierrette Lemieux; (3) Student A; (4) Student 1; (5) Student 2; (6) Student 3; (7) Student 5; (8) Jeannine Piette; and (9) Patrick Venne. The Member called two witnesses: (1) Estelle Corriveau and (2) Lucie Poitras. She also testified on her own behalf. The following is a brief overview of the testimony. The relevant sections of the witnesses’ testimonial evidence will be described in greater detail, as needed, in the Reasons for Decision, below.

The following witnesses testified by videoconference, further to a motion on consent granted by the Committee on April 26, 2017: Student A, Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 5, Estelle Corriveau and Lucie Poitras.

Witnesses for the College

1. Darquise Moreau

Darquise Moreau (“Ms. Moreau”) is an experienced educator who began her teaching career in 1991. She became a school principal in her first year of teaching and has worked as a principal or vice-principal at several different schools for many years. During the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Moreau began as Principal of XXX. She described her role as being the lead educator of the school and the manager in charge of ensuring its smooth operation.

Ms. Moreau testified that the Member was a teacher at [XXX] during the 2009-2010 school year and that she handled complaints concerning the Member’s conduct in the area of classroom management. As Principal, Ms. Moreau formed certain opinions concerning the Member’s classroom management.

Prior to the 2009-2010 school year, Ms. Moreau did not know the Member. They met at a meeting with other Board administrators on August 26, 2009 (see Exhibit 3). At this meeting, Ms. Moreau was apprised of a situation involving the Member which resulted in the filing of a report of abuse with the Children’s Aid Society on June 24, 2009. Ms. Moreau testified that she reviewed the Board’s guidelines with the Member (see Exhibit 4).

Ms. Moreau testified with the assistance of her typed notes regarding several incidents that occurred in January and February 2010 involving the Member. She received numerous complaints about the Member’s brusque tone of voice and intimidating behaviour, which made students cry. After receiving these complaints, Ms. Moreau met with the Member to inform her that she was required to notify the Children’s Aid Society concerning the teacher’s conduct (see Exhibit 5).

According to Ms. Moreau, the Member’s conduct was inappropriate and contravened the Board’s guidelines and the Standards for the Teaching Profession. She stated that students must always come first for teachers, who are responsible for guiding and ensuring student achievement. The Member failed to create a non-threatening learning environment. Ms. Moreau testified that, in her opinion, it was inappropriate to shout in a student’s face, rap a [XXX] on a student’s desk to get their attention or create a threatening learning environment.

According to Ms. Moreau, the Member had a host of resources and support at her disposal. For instance, a learning consultant helped her with classroom management strategies and she was given suggestions for reading resources (see Exhibit 9), but the Member’s conduct did not improve.

Little of Ms. Moreau’s evidence was contradicted in cross-examination, even though the Member had an opportunity to contest the evidence produced.

Participant Expert

Counsel for the College stated that, according to the criteria established in Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206 (“Westerhof”), Ms. Moreau met the definition of participant expert. A witness may give opinion evidence where it is based on his or her observation of or participation in the events at issue, and if the opinion is based on his or her skill, knowledge, training and experience (see Westerhof, para. 60).

The College stated that Ms. Moreau could be considered a participant expert because she is an experienced educator who has acquired skill, knowledge, training and experience in classroom management, and she was involved in the facts through her receipt of parents’ complaints, even if she did not observe the Member’s conduct firsthand. She had also formed an opinion concerning the Member’s classroom management deficiencies. The College produced the following case law in support of its position: Ontario College of Teachers v. Crouse, 2016 ONOCT 99 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Douglas, 2017 ONOCT 18.

The Member agreed that Ms. Moreau could be described as a participant expert in the area of classroom management.

The Committee therefore found that Ms. Moreau met the definition of participant expert established in Westerhof and described her as a participant expert in the area of classroom management.

2. Pierrette Lemieux

Pierrette Lemieux (“Ms. Lemieux”) is an experienced educator who began her teaching career in 1991. She spent more than 25 years as a teacher, working in the area of special education. In 2008, she became Vice-Principal of [XXX]. Since the 2010-2011 school year, Ms. Lemieux has been Principal of another school. She also taught special education courses at Laurentian University for approximately 20 years. In that time, Ms. Lemieux trained more than 3,000 qualified teachers and taught them how to work with students with behavioural and other exceptionalities.

Ms. Lemieux met the Member for the first time in September 2008. She described the 2008-2009 school year as a difficult one. Ms. Lemieux stated that she had never met a teacher as demanding as the Member. On April 20, 2009, the Member filed a complaint of workplace harassment against Ms. Lemieux and the Principal at the time (see Exhibit 16). Ms. Lemieux responded to this complaint on May 9, 2009 and presented her version of the facts (see Exhibit 17). Ms. Lemieux maintained that she did not harass the Member.

Ms. Lemieux testified that during the 2009-2010 school year (the year which concerns her in this matter), her role at [XXX] consisted of intervening in and commenting on misconduct she observed at the school and familiarizing herself thoroughly with the Board’s guidelines (administrative directives) as well as the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (see Exhibit 14) and the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession (see Exhibit 15).

Ms. Lemieux testified concerning two specific incidents relating to the Member’s classroom management (in which Ms. Lemieux intervened to resolve the incidents) as well as the teacher’s overall brusque and intimidating behaviour with her students. According to Ms. Lemieux, the Member shouted at her students, sometimes in their faces; made inappropriate comments to the students; and made her students cry. Ms. Lemieux stated that the environment in the small school community became toxic because of the Member’s conduct, that the parents mistrusted the teacher and that the school administration received a number of complaints and requests for a change of class. Ms. Lemieux considered the Member’s conduct inappropriate.

In cross-examination, the Member asked a long series of questions concerning the use of a SMART Board (an interactive whiteboard). According to Ms. Lemieux, the Member seemed preoccupied with the usage and sharing of a SMART Board and the procedure the school had set up to share this resource. The Member was clearly dissatisfied that no SMART Board had been set up in her classroom. The Committee noted, however, that the issue of the SMART Board (which seems to have prompted the harassment complaint against Ms. Lemieux) had no relevance to the allegations in the Notice of Hearing.[2] The Member also asked a number of questions on topics that were unfamiliar to Ms. Lemieux and on which she was therefore unable to comment. Little of Ms. Lemieux’s evidence concerning the key points in the allegations in the Notice of Hearing was contradicted in cross-examination.

Participant Expert

Ms. Lemieux knew the Member and handled complaints concerning the Member’s misconduct during the 2009-2010 school year at [XXX]. She had formed an opinion concerning the Member’s conduct and her management of incidents with students.

The College asked that Ms. Lemieux be described as a participant expert in the area of classroom management standards for reasons similar to those cited above with respect to Ms. Moreau. The Member agreed that Ms. Lemieux could be described as a participant expert in this area, and the Committee therefore acceded to the request and described Ms. Lemieux as a participant expert in the area of classroom management standards.

3. Student A

Student A testified via videoconference. He was not specifically named in the Notice of Hearing.

Student A was [XXX] years old at the time of the hearing, but he was a Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class at [XXX] during the 2009-2010 school year. He testified concerning the incidents he observed involving the Member and the teacher’s overall conduct. According to Student A, the Member often raised her voice very loudly and aggressively in class and intimidated the students. He was afraid of her and wanted to stop going to school because of his fear of seeing her. The teacher’s misconduct had a lasting effect on Student A and his academic career.

Little of Student A’s evidence was contradicted in cross-examination.

4. Student 1

Student 1 testified in English via videoconference. The Member received the services of an interpreter.

Student 1 was [XXX] years old at the time of his testimony, but he was a Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class at [XXX] during the 2009-2010 school year. He testified concerning an incident involving himself and the Member, and the teacher’s overall conduct. Student 1 described the Member as firm, condescending and vulgar towards the students. He said she raised her voice, sometimes rapped a metre-long [XXX] on the desk to get the class’s attention and made some students cry. Student 1 described one specific incident in which the Member reprimanded him in the hallway, shouting so close to his face that he could smell her breath. The student found the teacher intimidating at the time but acknowledged that the incident had not had a lasting effect on his future.

The key points in Student 1’s testimony were not contradicted in cross-examination. The Member attempted instead to emphasize that her conduct was warranted in view of the students’ behaviour. For example, with respect to the incident in which she rapped the [XXX] on a student’s desk, the Member asked Student 1 if he remembered how many times she had to stop the lesson before using the [XXX] to get the students’ attention; she did not, however, deny rapping on a student’s desk with the [XXX].

5. Student 2

Student 2 testified in English via videoconference. The Member received the services of an interpreter.

Student 2 was [XXX] years old at the time of her testimony, but she was a student at [XXX] in a combined Grade [XXX] classroom during the 2009-2010 school year. The Member was her Grade [XXX] [XXX] teacher at the time in question but was not her [XXX] teacher because Student 2 was afraid of the Member and did not want to be in her class. Student 2 testified concerning one specific incident involving herself and the Member in the hallway, in which the Member reprimanded her in an intimidating and aggressive manner. Student 2 also testified concerning the teacher’s overall conduct and stated that the Member often shouted at her students and a number of them were afraid of her because she was mean. Student 2 stated that she no longer enjoyed school to this day, (in part) because of the Member.

6. Student 3

Student 3 testified in English and French via videoconference. The Member received the services of an interpreter.

Student 3 was [XXX] years old at the time of her testimony, but she was a Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class at XXX during the 2010-2011 school year. When she was in Grade [XXX], Student 3 underwent [XXX] and had to wear [XXX] to heal properly. Student 3 testified concerning the incidents that involved herself and the Member, and the teacher’s overall conduct. Student 3 stated that the Member was extremely intimidating and hostile, and that she raised her voice on a daily basis and shouted right in the students’ faces. Student 3 was afraid of the Member and testified that the Member made some students cry. Student 3 also testified that the Member hit her on two occasions for no reason, that the teacher made fun of her and that the Member adversely affected her learning.

In cross-examination, the Member submitted two documents to Student 3: (1) a copy of an anonymous message from a student to the Member (see Exhibit 11) and (2) a copy of positive messages from students to the Member (see Exhibit 12). Student 3 did not, however, recognize the documents; she did not recall having written them and she did not recognize the handwriting as her own.

7. Student 5

Student 5 testified via videoconference.

Student 5 was [XXX] years old at the time of his testimony, but he was a Grade [XXX] student in the Member’s class at [XXX] during the 2010-2011 school year. Student 5 testified concerning an incident involving himself and the Member, and the teacher’s overall conduct. According to Student 5, the Member was an intimidating teacher. She was very strict and authoritarian and raised her voice loudly. Student 5 testified that the students were afraid of the Member, that they cried in class and that they were afraid to raise their hands because of her reactions.

Student 5 gave a detailed description of one incident in which he found the Member’s actions particularly discouraging and infuriating, so he ran away from the school by himself during the lunchtime recess, in a blizzard. He had to walk along a highway with transport truck traffic to get home. After this incident, Student 5 told the Principal that he would not return to school if the Member continued to be his teacher. The next day, the Member was replaced.

The key points in Student 5’s evidence were not contradicted in cross-examination.

8. Jeannine Piette

Jeannine Piette (“Ms. Piette”) was retired at the time of the hearing, but she was an experienced educator who had worked in a number of education fields since receiving her teaching certificate in 1993 (see Exhibit 19). Her experience included teaching exceptional students and adults, teaching Computer Studies and Mathematics and working as a learning consultant and a school principal. From November 2006 to June 2012, Ms. Piette was Principal of [XXX].

Ms. Piette testified that the Member was transferred to [XXX] during the 2010-2011 school year and became the [XXX] teacher of a combined Grade [XXX] classroom. During this year, Ms. Piette had occasion to supervise the Member and to deal with complaints about the teacher. [XXX] was small and had only [XXX] teachers at the time. Ms. Piette testified that she was well versed in the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession, the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Board’s code of conduct, which clearly set out teachers’ responsibilities.

Ms. Piette referred to her own notes concerning the Member during the 2010-2011 school year to testify about her many specific concerns with regard to the Member’s conduct (see Exhibit 21). The Principal received a number of complaints from parents concerning the Member’s aggressive tone of voice and intimidating conduct (see, for example, Exhibits 25-27). The teacher’s conduct also brought students to her office in tears. Ms. Piette testified that it was not usual for these students to miss school and she found that concerning, so she monitored the situation closely. She also conveyed these concerns to the Member. After one incident that prompted a meeting involving Ms. Piette, the teacher and a parent, Ms. Piette set some goals to which the Member agreed, including: sending students to the office if a dispute arose; respecting the children’s personal space and watching her tone of voice; and not adopting retaliatory measures (see Exhibit 21, page 716).

Ms. Piette also described the incident involving Student 5 who ran away from the school on January 17, 2011 and her participation in the subsequent investigation. After discussing the incident with Student 5, his mother, the Member and the school caretaker who had found the student by the side of the highway and taken him to his house, Ms. Piette found that the Member’s conduct was inappropriate. The Member failed to ensure the student’s safety by waiting for approximately 25 minutes before informing the office of his absence, which Ms. Piette considered unreasonable. Ms. Piette stated that the student had run away because he was traumatized by the teacher’s conduct.

During her investigation, Ms. Piette reviewed a handwritten letter from Student 5’s mother dated January 18, 2011, in which the mother explained that her son had run away from the school because he was afraid of the Member (see Exhibit 22), and she reviewed the handwritten notes by Student 5’s mother (written on the day of the incident) describing the incident (see Exhibit 28). On January 21, 2011, Ms. Piette sent the Member a letter advising her that she was required to provide a safe and healthy environment for students at all times and that the incident could result in disciplinary measures (see Exhibit 23). The Member was subsequently removed from the classroom.

Ms. Piette also testified concerning a report she had received stating that the Member had hit Student 3. Ms. Piette subsequently reported this information to the Children’s Aid Society and the Board. The Board removed the Member from the classroom until the CAS investigation was complete, but Ms. Piette did not know the outcome of the investigation.

Ms. Piette ended her direct examination by explaining that the Member was a good person who was committed to La Francophonie but was just not suited to teaching.

Participant Expert

Ms. Piette knew the Member and, as aforementioned, had occasion to deal with complaints about her conduct with the students during the 2010-2011 school year at [XXX]. She had formed an opinion concerning the Member’s conduct and her classroom management.

The College asked that Ms. Piette be described as a participant expert in the area of classroom management standards, on grounds similar to those cited above with respect to Ms. Moreau and Ms. Lemieux. The Member agreed that Ms. Piette could be described as a participant expert in this area, and the Committee therefore acceded to the request and described Ms. Piette as a participant expert in the area of classroom management standards.

9. Patrick Venne

Patrick Venne (“Mr. Venne”) is an experienced educator who has worked in a number of education fields since receiving his teaching certificate in 2000. He has taught Français, Physical Education and Computer Science, was a [XXX] teacher and has taught exceptional students. Mr. Venne began his first position as principal in February 2005 and was Principal of several schools, including [XXX] (), where he met the Member when both of them arrived at the school in September 2012. During the 2012-2013 school year, Mr. Venne supervised the Member at [XXX], dealt with complaints about her conduct and carried out her teacher performance appraisal.

Mr. Venne testified about his concerns with the Member’s classroom management and conduct with her Grade [XXX] and [XXX] students. He noticed that the Member always seemed to raise her voice with her students, that her students did not appear to have routines and that they did not seem motivated to learn (see Exhibit 36). As a result, Mr. Venne formed the opinion that the Member’s conduct was inappropriate.

Mr. Venne carried out the Member’s performance appraisal during the 2012-2013 school year and found that her performance was unsatisfactory. His observations are included in the Member’s Summative Report dated January 11, 2013 (see Exhibit 37) and his conclusion is not based on the complaints from parents received after that date. Mr. Venne’s observations included the fact that the Member regularly spoke sharply and very loudly to the students; that she always seemed angry; and that the students seemed intimidated (an observation confirmed by complaint calls he received from parents). As Principal, Mr. Venne had conducted some 50 teacher performance appraisals and given only two Unsatisfactory ratings. The Member received one of these two Unsatisfactory ratings. Mr. Venne and the Member worked together to develop an Improvement Plan in which the teacher was encouraged to change her tone of voice with the students, among other steps and actions (see Exhibit 38).

Mr. Venne testified about several complaints that he had received from parents relating to the Member’s conduct and the fact that she shouted in class and made discouraging comments to the students, and that the students were afraid of her (see, for example, Exhibits 42, 43, 44, 44A, 45 and 45A). Mr. Venne expressed these concerns to the Member.

Mr. Venne testified that the Member did not finish the 2012-2013 school year at [XXX]. She was transferred to work from home when the Children’s Aid Society received one or more reports regarding her (see Exhibit 35). While the Children’s Aid Society was carrying out its investigation, Mr. Venne’s Superintendent asked him to conduct his own investigation into the Member. He therefore met with some students and their parents and some members of the school’s staff concerning the incidents involving the Member. At the time, Mr. Venne did not know the findings of the Children’s Aid Society, but Counsel for the College showed him a letter dated May 31, 2013 from the CAS stating, “The Society is now satisfied that the information it has obtained confirms the need to protect the students. This verification is based on interviews with a number of students and parents, one witness and the educator herself, Ms. Labbé” (see Exhibit 32). Mr. Venne testified that he had arrived at a similar conclusion during his investigation.

Mr. Venne testified that, in his opinion, the Member had failed to maintain the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession, including Care and Respect (see Exhibit 15). The Member demonstrated a lack of compassion for her students and failed to honour their emotional wellness and cognitive development. Mr. Venne felt, similarly, that the Member had failed to maintain the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (see Exhibit 14). The Member’s conduct did not reflect Commitment to Students and Student Learning.

According to Mr. Venne, the number of complaints that he received from parents concerning the Member was unusual. In his opinion, the Member had an adverse effect on her students. He expected students to be happy and engaged in their learning, but that was not what he observed in the Member’s students. By contrast, after the Member left the school in March 2013, Mr. Venne and the parents observed that the students appeared to be enjoying school again and their work was better.

Mr. Venne testified that in his 12 years as principal, this was the only case that affected him personally to the point where he experienced difficulty sleeping. He felt powerless to make a change that he considered needed to be made immediately.

In cross-examination, the Member asked Mr. Venne several questions concerning two of her students who were very difficult to manage. She had asked Mr. Venne to place one of the students in another class, but Mr. Venne had turned down the request (see Exhibits 47, 48 and 49). Mr. Venne acknowledged that the behaviour of one of the students was unacceptable and the Member often had to deal with him (see Exhibit 50). He also acknowledged that the Member had called the office several times for assistance with the student. Mr. Venne maintained, however, that this student’s childhood had been difficult and that he needed compassion. In Mr. Venne’s opinion, the Member’s approach to managing the student’s behaviour was inappropriate. The teacher should have worked to improve her relationship with him and show him compassion.

Participant Expert

Mr. Venne knew the Member and, as aforementioned, had supervised the teacher; he had dealt with complaints concerning her conduct and carried out her performance appraisal during the 2012-2013 school year at [XXX]. He had formed an opinion about the Member’s conduct and her classroom management.

The College asked that Mr. Venne be described as a participant expert in the area of classroom management, on grounds similar to those cited above with respect to Ms. Moreau, Ms. Lemieux and Ms. Piette. The Member agreed that Mr. Venne could be described as a participant expert in this area, and the Committee therefore acceded to the request and described Mr. Venne as a participant expert in the area of classroom management.

Witnesses for the Member

1. Estelle Corriveau

Estelle Corriveau (“Ms. Corriveau”) is an experienced teacher who works at [XXX]. She was present at the school from September 2012 to January 2013. Her classroom was approximately 10 feet away from the Member’s classroom. She testified that the Member’s door was always open. According to Ms. Corriveau, the Member’s tone of voice was normal, and she did not shout at her students.

According to Ms. Corriveau, the Member was very well organized. She testified that she had even borrowed classroom management strategies from the Member when the Member was her mentor. Ms. Corriveau did not observe anything unusual about the motivation of the Member’s students. She also testified that three of the Member’s four Grade [XXX] students had learning or [XXX]. With reference to the student mentioned above who had [XXX] (to whom Mr. Venne referred), Ms. Corriveau testified that she observed an interaction between him and the Member in which the teacher was very gentle and cheerful with him.

In cross-examination, Ms. Corriveau acknowledged that she was not teaching in the same classroom as the Member during the 2012-2013 school year, and when she was teaching, she could not see or her the Member teaching. Furthermore, Ms. Corriveau was not a teacher with the Member at [XXX] or [XXX].

Ms. Corriveau testified that she had known the Member for more than 20 years in a personal capacity. They were friends. Ms. Corriveau admitted that she was testifying to help her friend.

Consequently, the Committee considered that Ms. Corriveau’s testimony lacked credibility and disregarded it. Ms. Corriveau was unable to observe any of the incidents alleged in the Notice of Hearing and her recall of the events was potentially biased because she was testifying to help her long-time friend.

2. Lucie Poitras

Lucie Poitras (“Ms. Poitras”) has been the lunchtime supervisor at [XXX] since 2010 and volunteered at the school before that. Her boys also attended [XXX] and the Member taught her youngest son in Grade [XXX]. Ms. Poitras testified that she was aware that other parents complained that the Member was mistreating their children, but the complaints were groundless. Ms. Poitras also testified that the school administration suggested that the parents submit a group complaint against the Member with the Board, to get her dismissed.

In cross-examination, Ms. Poitras confirmed that she was not a teacher at [XXX] and was not working at [XXX] or [XXX]during the period in question. Given that she was never present in the Member’s class, Ms. Poitras admitted that she was unable to say whether the Member shouted in class, made students cry, acted in an intimidating manner in class or was brusque with the students. Ms. Poitras did, however, testify that she often walked through the hallways and the Member’s tone of voice did not seem any louder than that of the other teachers.

The Committee found that Ms. Poitras’s testimony lacked credibility and disregarded it. Except for the times when she was walking through the hallways, Ms. Poitras was unable to observe the Member’s teaching. She was not present during any of the incidents alleged in the Notice of Hearing, so her evidence was of little use to the Committee. Her claim that the school administration encouraged parents to file complaints against the Member was unsubstantiated by the evidence as a whole and was thus disregarded by the Committee.

3. Lorraine Labbé

The Member testified on her own behalf with the help of her notes, with the College’s consent. She was an experienced teacher who began her teaching career in the 1990s. She worked in a variety of [XXX] teaching positions in public and Catholic French-language schools and as a [XXX] teacher and [XXX] teacher for Grades [XXX] to[XXX].

The Member testified that she had encountered occasional difficulties during her career. For example, during the 2000-2001 school year, she received complaints from parents which she found so stressful that she had to take sick leave. In 2002-2003, the school where she was teaching shut down, so she began working in another school. The Member testified that she encountered problems at the new school. She received negative feedback in her performance appraisal and the caretakers at the school made hurtful comments, calling her “the crazy woman” (see Exhibit 57). As a result, the Member filed a harassment complaint with the Board. The Member gave detailed descriptions of her experiences at various schools, but most of this testimony was not relevant to the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing and was therefore disregarded by the Committee.

The Member stated that, early in the 2008-2009 school year, the interactive SMART Board was removed from her classroom, and that caused her several problems because many of her lessons were designed for it. Consequently, the Member filed a harassment complaint against the Principal, feeling that the Principal “was putting too many spokes in my wheels.” She testified at length concerning the SMART Board, but most of this testimony was not relevant to the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing and was therefore disregarded by the Committee.

On August 26, 2009, the Member had a meeting at the Board in which she was advised that a complaint had been filed against her with the Children’s Aid Society. According to the Member, she asked who had submitted the complaint and what the grounds were but received no information. The administration reviewed the conduct guidelines with her, but according to the Member, she had not contravened them in any way. In cross-examination, however, the Member acknowledged her awareness that more serious disciplinary measures could follow if she failed to observe the guidelines, and that another report to the Children’s Aid Society was possible.

The Member testified that the 2009-2010 school year began well and the Principal, Ms. Moreau, was supportive in September, but in October 2009, she began receiving fresh criticisms and complaints concerning her assessment and evaluation of the students. The Member maintained that she had done nothing wrong. She maintained that if students were crying in her class, it was because they were young or had not done their homework; it was not because of her behaviour.

During the 2010-2011 school year, the Member was a teacher at [XXX]. She testified about eight complaints she had received from students or their parents. Once again, the Member claimed she had done nothing wrong and the “complaints” were merely “calls” from parents and were nothing serious. She attended a meeting with the school administration and her federation representative to discuss her behaviour. The relevant particulars of her evidence concerning the students referred to in the Notice of Hearing will be described in the Committee’s reasons, below.

The Member was on sick leave during the 2011-2012 school year. In January 2012, she returned to work on a half-time basis in a new school under certain conditions stipulated by the Board, but still had difficulties with some students. As a result, she decided to take sick leave again, believing that if she stayed at the school, something else would happen and she would be “set up” again.

In September 2012, the Member started another teaching position at [XXX], in a combined Grade [XXX] class. She also changed her name so that she could leave her past behind. The Member testified that she had some Grade [XXX] students who were really struggling, and a student with [XXX]. She admitted saying to one student, “You don’t get up like that. You have to ask my permission to leave the classroom. Do you think you’re royalty?” She acknowledged that this comment was inappropriate.

Once again, the Children’s Aid Society became involved because of the teacher’s behaviour towards her students, and the Member was transferred to work from home. According to the Member, she did not really know what she was doing wrong because the parents did not come to see her. They just called the Principal (Mr. Venne) without discussing the situation with the Member first.

After giving her testimony, the Member entered several documents as exhibits, including emails highlighting the positive aspects of her teaching (see Exhibits 58, 59, 60 and 61). She did not, however, go over or explain the documents in detail with the Committee; nor did she provide any context. The Committee gave little weight to these documents, which were presented briefly without any context. The Member entered other documents as well, including:

• submissions from her lawyer (at the time) concerning the complaint filed by the Chief Executive Officer and Registrar of the College (see Exhibit 62);

• individual grievances filed by the Member between 2009 and 2013 (see Exhibit 63);

• a series of notes by the Member dated April to June 2009 (see Exhibit 64);

• notes by the Member from the 2009-2010 school year (see Exhibit 65);

• email correspondence between the Member and AEFO (her teaching federation) concerning the 2009-2010 school year (see Exhibit 66);

• an account of the communication between the Member and AEFO concerning the 2010-2011 school year (see Exhibit 67);

• email correspondence between the Member and AEFO concerning the 2010-2011 school year (see Exhibit 68);

• another series of communications between the Member and AEFO concerning the 2010-2011 school year (see Exhibit 69);

• email correspondence among the Member, Mr. Venne and AEFO concerning the 2012-2013 school year (see Exhibit 70);

• a letter from the Superintendent of Education (Lise Chrétien-Gardner) to the Member dated June 8, 2010 (see Exhibit 71);

• a letter from the Superintendent of Education (Robert Mayer) to the Member dated June 20, 2011 (see Exhibit 72).

The Committee reviewed these documents but gave them little weight. The documents consisted of several hundred pages, and the Member did not give the Committee any explanation or guidance concerning them. The documents refer to a number of people about whom the Committee knew nothing, and it was difficult to follow the Member’s extensive notes without any information. Furthermore, the documents were not all related to the allegations in the Notice of Hearing and contained a great deal of irrelevant information.

In cross-examination, Counsel for the College suggested, and the Member agreed, that she had received numerous complaints in her career. The Member felt that the real reason she received so many complaints was because she was on a “blacklist” and was being treated unfairly, and that it was not because her behaviour was worse than that of the other teachers.

College Counsel also asked the Member to explain what she meant by her description to the Children’s Aid Society of the usefulness of “constructive fear” (see Exhibit 33, page 244). The Member said that one of her classroom management strategies made use of “constructive fear.” She contended that fear could save the life of someone on the edge of a cliff because a person with no fear could fall over the edge. Similarly, constructive fear could be useful in a classroom because it motivated students to avoid problems at school.

COLLEGE’S SUBMISSIONS ON THE FINDING

The College reviewed the relevant evidence in detail with the Committee and explained how the evidence produced supported the finding of professional misconduct as alleged in the Notice of Hearing. According to College Counsel, the evidence supported all of the allegations in paragraphs 3(a)-(i) of the Notice of Hearing, except paragraph 3(g). The College contended, among other claims, that the evidence showed that the Member shouted at a number of students, intimidated a number of students, hit one student, failed to inform the school principal immediately of the absence of a student who had run away from the school, and made a number of students cry. A report was made to the Children’s Aid Society following several incidents involving the Member, and the CAS found that the allegations against the teacher which it had reviewed were substantiated. Furthermore, the College contended that the Member accepted no responsibility for her actions. Consequently, College Counsel argued that the Member had contravened subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, as set out in the Notice of Hearing.

MEMBER’S SUBMISSIONS ON THE FINDING

The Member denied all of the allegations against her. She did not feel that she had been fairly treated during the proceedings. The teacher maintained that she had not received all the particulars of the allegations against her which would have enabled her to defend herself. In addition, she reiterated that the Board ought not to have kept her at the same school as Ms. Lemieux after the Member filed a harassment complaint against her.

With reference to the incidents about which Student 1 and Student A testified, the Member claimed that their testimonies were inconsistent and that the students were malicious.

Similarly, the Member argued that the incident involving Student 2 was inconsistent with Ms. Lemieux’s testimony and that the allegations were “set up” by Ms. Lemieux.

According to the Member, she was subsequently sent to [XXX] where she immediately received eight complaints in October. The Member maintained that the Principal had a grudge against her and that Ms. Piette had written pages of disagreeable remarks, falsehoods and lies about her.

Regarding Student 3’s testimony, the Member claimed that the student had no evidence and that nobody had witnessed the actions which the student described. The Member stated that Student 3 was an attention-seeker and could be nasty when she did not receive the attention she wanted.

Regarding Student 5’s testimony, the Member claimed that his version of events was inconsistent. Furthermore, the Member believed that the allegations involving Student 5 had been “set up” in order to accuse her. Everything was exaggerated, according to the Member, to build a big case against her.

With respect to her tone of voice, the Member maintained that she had sometimes had to raise her voice, depending on the circumstance, to discipline the students, but her tone of voice was always appropriate. The complaints concerning her tone of voice were “set up,” the teacher maintained.

The Member blamed the Board for failing to give her adequate support, notify her in a timely manner or give her the information that she needed to resolve the problems raised in the parents’ complaints. According to the Member, when a concern was raised and the parents or school administration cooperated with her, she was able to deal with the problem.

The Member maintained that Mr. Venne’s testimony was a complete fabrication and that he was looking for complaints in order to build a case against the teacher.

According to the Member, she had done good work as a teacher. She referred to positive letters of recommendation in support of her position (see Exhibit 62, pages 37-42). She claimed that her workplace was unhealthy and stressful because of the lack of support from the schools’ principals, that the allegations against her were “set up,” that the College’s evidence was inconsistent and that she had done nothing wrong.

COLLEGE’S REPLY AS TO THE FINDING

The College responded to several of the Member’s submissions. Firstly, with regard to the issues raised by the Member concerning the Board’s procedure, her harassment complaint, the grievance procedure and the reasons for the delay in forwarding the complaints to the College, among other concerns, the College submitted that none of these issues was the Committee’s concern. The Committee’s duty was strictly to rule on matters set out in the Notice of Hearing. Furthermore, the College noted that the Member had acknowledged that ever since the case had come before the Committee, she had received the information she needed to mount a defence.

Secondly, the College responded to the Member’s theory that the complaints had been fabricated and that there was a conspiracy against her. The College submitted that the Member had not put her theory before the witnesses (to give them an opportunity to respond to her accusations) or, if she had put her theory before them, they had denied the conspiracy. Consequently, the College maintained that the Member’s theory was groundless.

Thirdly, the College responded to the Member’s submissions that the testimonies of the witnesses for the College were inconsistent. According to the College, the inconsistencies raised were trifling and had no bearing on the central facts in the matter. The College argued that there are always minor inconsistencies in any testimony, particularly children’s testimonies. More importantly for the Committee, the central facts put forward in the Notice of Hearing were proven.

Lastly, the College responded to the Member’s submissions that her record included positive comments. According to the College, the positive comments were not relevant in this matter. The College was not accusing the Member of incompetence, by alleging that she had done nothing to improve student achievement. The College was accusing her of specific facts within a specific timeframe of three school years. Consequently, the positive comments were unrelated to the allegations in the Notice of Hearing and ought not to be considered by the Committee.

DECISION

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] SCR 53, that is, on the balance of probabilities, which consists in determining the likelihood of the occurrence of the alleged events.

Finding

Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions made by Counsel for the College and the Member, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of incompetence and finds that Lorraine Labbé is guilty of professional misconduct contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19), as set out in the Notice of Hearing. The College failed to show that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and this allegation was therefore dismissed.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Committee carefully reviewed the submissions by the parties and the evidence produced. In the reasons that follow, it gives an opinion solely on those portions of the evidence that most closely correspond to the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing, and on the legal questions put forward at the hearing. The Committee does not discuss matters that are not specifically related to the Notice of Hearing.

Findings of Fact

3(a): the Member raised her voice to and/or shouted at the students

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member raised her voice to and/or shouted at the students. The evidence put forward by the schools’ administrators and several students supports this finding of fact and is consistent with a number of letters from parents entered into evidence.

Ms. Moreau testified that she received a number of complaints from parents concerning the Member’s tone of voice while she was teaching at [XXX]. On January 26, 2010, Student A’s mother told her that her son no longer enjoyed going to school because the Member shouted at him. At a meeting with Student A’s mother and the Member on February 10, 2010, the mother reiterated her concerns that the Member shouted loudly at her son, among others.

In the same vein, Ms. Moreau received a call from the mother of Student 1 on January 28, 2010. The mother was concerned about the Member’s tone of voice and explained that her son was shy and sensitive and his heart would race when he was shouted at.

Ms. Moreau also received a complaint from the father of a student on February 4, 2010. The father was furious about the Member’s behaviour, including the fact that she shouted in his son’s face. On February 8, 2010, Ms. Moreau followed up with the student, who confirmed these concerns (see Exhibit 5).

Ms. Lemieux also testified concerning the Member’s tone of voice at [XXX]. She was present when the Member shouted in Student 1’s face. The teacher shouted, “Do you or don’t you have any common sense? Well, use it!” According to Ms. Lemieux, this meant that the Member was asking the student if he was brainless.

Ms. Lemieux also observed an incident in the hallway in which the Member was shouting in Student 2’s face. She said the teacher shouted, “Don’t you have any friends? You’re always fighting outside. You don’t have any friends. Not even Jesus likes you.” In her testimony, Student 2 described the same incident in basically similar terms. According to the student, the Member shouted, “Jesus is upset with you!” The Committee found that the differences between the testimonies of Student 2 and Ms. Lemieux on this topic were minor and that the main points in their testimonies were consistent and credible. Although the Member denied the incident, the Committee found that she shouted at the student and referred to Jesus.

In addition, the Committee accepted the testimony of Student A, who stated that the Member often raised her voice very loudly and aggressively in class and intimidated the students at [XXX]. Student A observed two incidents in which the teacher shouted at students, although he was not directly involved. One incident profoundly affected him, because he was sitting beside Student 1 while the Member was shouting at him for not finishing his homework. Student A testified that the incident lasted for about 30 minutes and that he was terrified because he was wondering what the Member would do if a student had done something more serious. The Committee is not convinced that the incident lasted half an hour (although the student might have had that impression because he was so affected by the incident), but the Committee agreed that the Member’s reaction to a student who had not done his homework was extreme and inappropriate. Student A’s testimony was credible in this regard. He had no interest that could affect his recollection of the incidents, and he was able to observe the incident firsthand.

Ms. Piette testified concerning the Member’s tone of voice when she was teaching at [XXX]. Ms. Piette’s testimony was credible, precise and detailed, and was consistent with her typed notes made at the time (see Exhibit 21). The Committee accepted the evidence that, on October 7, 2010, three parents complained that the Member was shouting at and intimidating their children (see Exhibit 21, page 705). The Committee also accepted Ms. Piette’s evidence that the students did not want to return to school because of the Member’s behaviour and that this was not normal. The Member’s behaviour concerned Ms. Piette, who therefore monitored the situation carefully. She reported her concerns to the Member, but the teacher’s behaviour continued.

On December 21, 2010, Ms. Piette received another complaint from a parent who was furious that the Member was intimidating her daughter and shouting in her face. Ms. Piette’s evidence shows that this incident occurred on the evening of the [XXX]. The Member began shouting at the student that she was the “boss,” which intimidated the student (see Exhibit 21, pages 715-716).

Ms. Piette also testified that she had received several letters from parents complaining about the Member (see Exhibits 25, 26 and 27). According to Ms. Piette, this was unusual. The Committee realized that these letters constituted hearsay evidence but assigned them a certain weight because they were consistent with Ms. Piette’s testimony and plausible in light of the evidence as a whole. The letters all say the same thing: the Member shouted at the students, made them cry and intimidated them.

Student 3 testified that the Member was extremely intimidating and hostile, and that she raised her voice on a daily basis and shouted in the students’ faces. The student’s evidence was consistent; she observed the Member’s behaviour firsthand; she could clearly recall the events; and she had no interest that could affect her recollection of the events. Consequently, the Committee accepted her testimony in this matter.

Mr. Venne also testified concerning the Member’s similar conduct at [XXX]. Like the principals of the other schools where the Member taught previously, Mr. Venne received several complaints from parents concerning the Member’s conduct. In December 2012, one parent became concerned because her daughter seemed nervous and had wet her pants on four or five occasions (which was not usual for her). The student complained to her parents that the Member shouted in class (see Exhibit 40). In April 2013, Mr. Venne received other complaints from concerned parents. One parent reported that her daughter was unhappy in the Member’s class and had “wet her pants” (see Exhibits 44 and 44A). Her daughter reported that the Member shouted at the students and shouted so loudly that the class could hear her even when she was reprimanding another student in the hallway. Based on his observations of the Member, Mr. Venne testified that she often spoke sharply and very loudly to the students, that she always seemed angry and that her students seemed intimidated. Mr. Venne’s evidence was detailed and consistent and was supported by his notes made at the time. The Committee accepted his testimony that the Member shouted at the students.

Similarly, the Committee accepted Student 5’s evidence that the Member was very strict and authoritarian. Student 5 testified that the students were afraid of the Member, that they cried in class and that they were afraid to raise their hands because of her reactions. The Committee found that Student 5’s testimony in this regard was credible and not overstated.

The Member denied a number of the aforementioned incidents relating to the allegation that she raised her voice or shouted at the students. She admitted, however, that she had made at least one student jump by shouting his name when he was sharpening his pencil at the wrong time (see Exhibit 21, page 714). In cross-examination, she testified that she did not shout at any one student “more than the others.” She stated that she had a carrying tone of voice but would not describe it as strident.

Ms. Corriveau testified that the Member’s tone of voice was normal and that she did not shout, but she admitted that she had never observed or heard the Member’s lessons, and that she was testifying to help her long-time friend. The Committee therefore disregarded her testimony.

Similarly, Ms. Poitras testified that she often walked through the school hallways and did not hear the Member talking any more loudly than the other teachers. In her opinion, her tone of voice was normal. However, she was never able to observe the Member’s teaching and admitted that she could not say whether the Member shouted in class. The Committee therefore disregarded her testimony.

Given the overwhelming evidence in support of the allegation, the Committee finds that the Member did in fact raise her voice and shout at the students. The evidence of several students and the administrators at the three schools was consistent and credible. A number of parents complained about the Member’s tone of voice. The Committee does not accept that the Member merely had a carrying voice. This defence is not consistent with the evidence as a whole before the Committee. The Committee finds it possible that, at a given time, the Member was not aware that she was shouting at her students (because this behaviour had become so habitual), but her students noticed it frequently and found it intimidating.

3(b): the Member shouted in Student 1 and Student 2’s faces

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member did shout in Student 1 and Student 2’s faces. The Committee heard evidence from Ms. Lemieux, the Member, Student A, Student 1 and Student 2 relating to this allegation.

With regard to the incident involving Student 1, Ms. Lemieux testified that she observed the student sitting in the Member’s class and the teacher shouting in his face. According to Ms. Lemieux, she told the Member to stop shouting at the student, but the teacher did not stop immediately. She shouted one last time at Student 1: “Do you or don’t you have any common sense? [...] Well, use it!” Ms. Lemieux stated that the Member’s voice was loud, brusque and unacceptable, and she was basically asking the student if he was brainless. Student 1 was crying and seemed afraid, so Ms. Lemieux had him come to her office to calm down.

Student 1 testified concerning another incident in which the Member reprimanded him for not finishing his homework. Student 1 stated that while she was talking to him in the hallway, the Member was standing about a foot away from him, so close that he could smell her breath. Student 1 found the teacher intimidating at the time and testified that he cried while telling his mother what had happened.

Similarly, Student A testified that the Member often raised her voice very loudly and aggressively in class and intimidated the students. According to Student A, the Member would grip a student’s desks with both hands so she could talk to them six to 12 inches away from their face. Student A observed close up one incident in which the Member shouted at Student 1 for a long time, until the student started to cry.

The Member confirmed that she had spoken to Student 1 several times about his homework, and he did start to cry on one occasion. The Member explained, however, that the student was crying because he had not done his work, not out of fear. The Member also denied talking loudly in his face. The Member confirmed that she had told one student to use his “common sense” and the student had started to cry, but the teacher maintained that she was just trying to make the student laugh with this comment.

The Committee finds the students’ testimonies more credible than the Member’s on this subject. The students’ evidence was consistent, and they had clear, detailed recollections of the events. For example, Student 1 recalled that the teacher was standing so close to him that he could smell her breath. The students’ testimonies also tallied with the evidence given by Ms. Lemieux, who also observed the incident involving the Member and Student 1. Ms. Lemieux intervened to put a stop to the incident. In addition, the Member admitted telling the student to use his “common sense,” a remark which the Committee considers insulting and inappropriate. The Committee rejects the Member’s explanation that she was trying to use humour. Her professed intentions notwithstanding, she intimidated and insulted the student.

As regards the incident involving Student 2, Ms. Lemieux testified that she had observed the incident in the school hallway. The bell had just rung, so the hallways were crowded. According to Ms. Lemieux, she observed the Member shouting in Student 2’s face, “Don’t you have any friends? You’re always fighting outside. You don’t have any friends. Not even Jesus likes you.” Student 2 was crying, so Ms. Lemieux took him to her office. In cross-examination, Ms. Lemieux claimed that the Member’s voice was even louder than the 150 or so students who were in the hallway at the time of the incident.

Student 2 testified about the same incident. According to the student, the Member reprimanded her in the hallway because she did not want to play with some of the students in the Member’s class. Student 2 stated that the Member told her, “Jesus is upset with you,” with her finger in the student’s face.

The Member, however, gave a different version of the events. According to the Member, when she took Student 2 out of the classroom to deal with a fight reported by some of her other students, the hallway was almost empty, and all her interactions with the student were appropriate. She denied saying, “Jesus is upset with you,” and, although she admitted asking the student if she had any friends, the Member claimed that she asked the question because she wanted Student 2 to go and play with her friends instead of squabbling with some of the other students. The Member testified that she did not feel she had any conflict with Student 2; she was merely resolving some playground squabbles. She stated, “I didn’t dislike her any more than the others. I didn’t have a conflict.”

The Committee finds that the version of events described by Student 2 and Ms. Lemieux was more credible than the Member’s. Although there were some minor differences between Student 2’s testimony and Ms. Lemieux’s, their testimonies were essentially consistent. Both testified that the Member made inappropriate remarks about the student and referred to Jesus. The Committee believes that Ms. Lemieux’s claim that the Member’s voice was louder than 150 students was exaggerated but finds that the Member’s voice was loud enough for Ms. Lemieux to hear what she said to the student, which prompted her to intervene. The Committee therefore rejects the Member’s explanation that she had taken Student 2 out of her classroom merely to ask her calmly if she had any friends. This version of events is implausible in light of the evidence as a whole.

3(c): the Member made several students in the class cry

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member made several students in the class cry. The Committee heard evidence from Ms. Lemieux, Ms. Piette, Student 1, Student 3, Student 5, Ms. Moreau and the Member concerning this allegation.

Ms. Lemieux testified that she was present during the incident in which the Member shouted at Student 1, asking him if he had any “common sense.” According to Ms. Lemieux, the teacher was talking loudly in a brusque and unacceptable manner. Student 1 was crying and seemed afraid, so Ms. Lemieux had him come to her office to calm down. Ms. Lemieux testified that she discussed the incident with the Principal. Ms. Lemieux also testified that the Member made Student 2 cry when she shouted at her in the hallway, asking if she had any friends and why she was fighting with the other students. Ms. Lemieux also took Student 2 to her office after observing this incident involving the student and the teacher.

Ms. Piette testified that a student came to her office in tears, complaining of stomach ache. According to Ms. Piette, she was a very good, quiet student who never missed school. She wanted to stop coming to school because the Member shouted in the classroom and adversely affected the students. Ms. Piette testified that it was not usual for this student to miss school, and she found this concerning, so she monitored the situation closely. She also reported these concerns to the Member.

Student 1, Student 3 and Student 5 all testified that the Member was intimidating and made students in her class cry. Their testimonies on this subject were consistent and credible. Student 1 testified that one student in the class started crying because of the way the Member spoke to her. Student 3 testified that she was afraid of the Member and the teacher made some students cry. Student 5 testified that, the day after he had run away from school, when the Member was asking him why he had done so, he started to cry and hid in the washroom to avoid the teacher. The students had very clear recollections of the incidents involving the Member; they were present during the incidents they described; and they had no interest that could affect their recollection of the incidents. The Committee therefore found their testimonies in this regard credible.

Ms. Moreau testified with the assistance of her typed notes (see Exhibit 5). She received complaints from several parents about the Member’s conduct. Student A’s mother raised some concerns on January 26, 2010 and met with Ms. Moreau at the school on February 10, 2010. The mother said that the Member shouted at her son; that her son was crying at school and wanted to stop going; and that five of his friends had cried in the Member’s class in a single week. Ms. Moreau testified that she received a complaint from another parent on February 4, 2010. A student’s father reported to Ms. Moreau that his son often cried at school; that he had become nervous; that the Member shouted in his face; and that the Member scared him by rapping a [XXX] on his desk to get his attention. Ms. Moreau followed up with the student on February 8, 2010, and the student told her that the Member had made him cry again that day. The Committee noted that her testimony tallied with the evidence given by the students and Ms. Lemieux, and her testimony was supported by her notes made at the time.

The Member admitted during her testimony that several students had started crying in her class. During the incident in which she told a student to use his “common sense,” the student started to cry. She also admitted that Student 1 had cried on one occasion when she confronted him about not doing his homework. Similarly, during the incident noted above in which a student was sharpening his pencil at the wrong time and the Member made him jump by shouting his name, the student started to cry. The Member also testified that Student 2 had run to her mother (who had paid an unexpected visit to the classroom) and started to cry when the teacher told her to finish an assignment that she did not want to do. At a later point in her testimony, however, the Member contradicted herself, stating that Student 2 did not cry during her interactions with her. The Member also claimed that the students were crying simply because they were young or had not done their homework. The Committee rejected the Member’s explanations in this regard. Her testimony was neither consistent nor plausible in light of the evidence as a whole.

The Committee therefore found that, although the Member may not have been aware of her negative effect on the students’ well-being, nor may it have been her intention to make the students cry, she did make a number of her students cry. The evidence given by the witnesses for the College was consistent, detailed and plausible and was supported by notes made at the time. Even the Member admitted that her students would cry. The Committee finds that it is more likely than unlikely that they were crying because the teacher’s behaviour was intimidating.

3(d): the Member was intimidating and/or brusque with the students

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member was intimidating and/or brusque with the students, as alleged. The Committee heard evidence from Ms. Moreau, Ms. Lemieux, Student A, Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 5, Ms. Piette and the Member concerning this allegation.

Ms. Moreau testified that she received a complaint on February 4, 2010 from a father who was furious about the Member’s conduct. The father reported that she shouted in his son’s face and scared him by rapping a [XXX] on his desk to get his attention.

Ms. Lemieux testified that the Member was brusque with the students. She described the aforementioned “common sense” incident and the one involving Student 2 in the hallway. Ms. Lemieux testified that the Member’s manner with the students was brusque, intimidating and unacceptable during these two incidents.

Student A testified that the Member often raised her voice very loudly and aggressively in class and intimidated the students. According to the student, the Member would sometimes grip a student’s desk with both hands so that she could talk in his or her face. He also described one incident in which he had asked the Member for help with his geometry homework after being away from school with a virus. Student A testified that the Member grudgingly helped him at recess, saying, “You’re wasting my time.” The student found his teacher intimidating during this incident.

Student 1 testified that the Member reprimanded him in the hallway for not finishing his homework. He said the teacher was standing about a foot away from him, so close that he could smell her breath, which he found intimidating.

Student 2 described the incident referred to above. The Member confronted her in the hallway, saying, “Jesus is upset with you.” According to Student 2, she found the incident frightening, intimidating and traumatic and wanted to stop going to school. She has disliked school to this day, which she attributed in part to her bad experience with the Member.

Student 3 testified that the Member was extremely intimidating and hostile, and that she raised her voice on a daily basis and shouted in the students’ faces. Student 3 was afraid of the Member.

Student 5 testified that the Member was an intimidating teacher. She was strict and authoritarian, and the students were afraid of her and were afraid to raise their hands in class because of her reactions. Student 5 said he was not a trouble-maker and the Member did not have to reprimand him often, but that he had observed her intimidating interactions with other students.

Ms. Piette testified that, on October 7, 2010, three parents of good students complained that the Member shouted at their children and intimidated them (see Exhibit 21, page 705). One student also came to her office in tears, because the Member was shouting at the students. Ms. Piette described another incident on December 21, 2010 on the evening of the [XXX][XXX]. Another teacher had given the students permission to bring their video games to the[XXX], but the Member disagreed and shouted at the students that she was the “boss” and they were not allowed to have their games with them (see Exhibit 21, pages 715-716). The mother of one of these students, Ms. Piette and the Member met after the [XXX] to discuss the incident. Although the Member denied the incident, the meeting ended with the setting of some goals to which the Member agreed, including sending students to the office in a disagreement, respecting children’s personal space and being mindful of her tone of voice, and not adopting retaliatory measures (see Exhibit 21, page 716).

The Member denied intimidating the students, but she did admit that she had rapped a [XXX] on a student’s desk so hard that the plastic tip came off. According to her, this behaviour was not all that inappropriate. She stated that the students would not pay attention and she had often seen such an action used in class to regain control over students. Although she did not consider this action intimidating, she acknowledged that she did not know how the students perceived the behaviour.

The Committee finds that the Member was intimidating and/or brusque with the students. The teacher admitted rapping her [XXX] on a student’s desk, which the Committee considers intimidating. The students’ testimonies were consistent and detailed, and they were all affected by the teacher’s intimidating behaviour. Furthermore, their testimonies were supported by the evidence of the school principals, who all observed similar actions or received complaints about them from parents. The Committee received notes made at the time which tallied with the evidence presented by the witnesses for the College. The Committee accepts that the Member did not consider her actions intimidating, but that does not mean they were not intimidating for the students. What matters is the student’s experience, not the teacher’s intention.

3(e): the College failed to prove that the Member pulled Student 2 by the arm, but she did make inappropriate comments to the student

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the College failed to show that the Member pulled Student 2 by the arm, as alleged. However, the College did prove that the Member made inappropriate comments to the student. The Committee heard evidence from Ms. Moreau, Ms. Lemieux, Student 2 and the Member concerning this allegation.

Ms. Moreau testified with the assistance of her typed notes. Referring to her notes made at the time, Ms. Moreau described incidents which took place in January 2010 involving the Member and Student 2. Although she did not observe these incidents herself, Ms. Moreau testified that Ms. Lemieux reported that the Member had shouted at Student 2 in the hallway and that the student was crying. According to the report she received, the Member had shouted, “You don’t have any friends, you don’t get along with anyone and you try to make trouble for the girls” (see Exhibit 5).

As aforementioned, Ms. Lemieux observed the incident involving the Member and Student 2 in the hallway. The Vice-Principal testified that the Member shouted in Student 2’s face, “Don’t you have any friends? You’re always fighting outside. You don’t have any friends. Not even Jesus likes you.” After observing this incident, Ms. Lemieux brought Student 2 to her office. Ms. Lemieux became emotional at this point in her testimony and stated that she had been affected by this incident.

Student 2 testified that the Member reprimanded her in the hallway because she did not want to play with some of the teacher’s students. According to Student 2, the Member became angry, took her out of the classroom, grabbed her by the arm, pushed her against a locker and told her, “Jesus is upset with you,” with her finger in the student’s face. Student 2 testified that the teacher grabbed her arm so hard that she left red marks on her arm which the student’s mother noticed at home.

The Member recalled the above-mentioned incident but denied pulling Student 2 by the arm or pushing her against the lockers. According to the Member, she had taken Student 2 out of another class to discuss a fight that had been reported to her by other students. The Member testified that her interactions with Student 2 were appropriate. Although she admitted asking the student if she had any friends, the Member claimed that she asked the question because she wanted Student 2 to go and play with her friends instead of squabbling with other students. The Member denied saying, “You don’t have any friends” to Student 2, but in the Committee’s estimation, there is no real difference between asking a student if she has any friends (in the aforementioned circumstances) and telling the student that she does not have any friends. Both remarks are inappropriate because they disparage the student.

The Committee finds that the College failed to prove that the Member pulled Student 2 by the arm. Student 2 is the only one who testified that the Member pulled her by the arm, and her testimony in this regard is not credible. If the Member had grabbed her arm so hard that she left red marks on her arm (which were still visible when she arrived home), the student would probably have shown the marks to Ms. Lemieux in her office and there would probably have been a report to this effect in the school administration’s detailed notes. However, neither Ms. Moreau’s notes nor Ms. Lemieux’s evidence state that the teacher pulled the student by the arm. Ms. Lemieux observed the incident firsthand and was affected by it, but she did not say anything about the alleged physical contact. Consequently, the Committee finds that the College failed to prove this serious allegation.

The Committee does find, however, that the Member made inappropriate comments to Student 2. The Member admitted asking the student if she had any friends, and the Committee finds this was said in the context described by Ms. Moreau, Ms. Lemieux and Student 2. The evidence provided by these three witnesses on the subject was consistent and plausible. Ms. Lemieux observed the incident firsthand, and she brought a crying Student 2 to her office after the incident. No matter the teacher’s intentions, the confrontation in the hallway between the Member and Student 2 was intimidating and inappropriate.

3(f): the College failed to prove that the Member hit Student 3 on the back of the head

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the College failed to show that the Member hit Student 3 on the back of the head, as alleged. The Committee heard evidence from Student 3, Ms. Piette and the Member concerning this allegation.

Student 3 testified that the Member hit her twice for no reason: once on the back of the head when she was working at her desk, and a second time the same day, on her back with her hand. Student 3 stated that she was wearing her [XXX] when she was hit and that the blows were hard and painful.

Ms. Piette testified that she found out on January 26, 2011, that the Member had hit Student 3 on the back of the head and on her back. The incidents took place before Christmas, but Ms. Piette was not told until January. She then followed up with the parents of the students who had reported this information to her and with Student 3. Ms. Piette reported the incident to the Children’s Aid Society and the Board but did not discuss the incident with the Member and did not know the outcome of the investigation.

The Member acknowledged that it was inappropriate to hit or touch students, but she denied hitting Student 3.

The Committee finds that Student 3’s testimony concerning the blows allegedly struck by the Member was exaggerated and thus lacking in credibility. Student 3 testified that the Member hit her on the back of the head and on her back and that the blows were hard and painful, but the letter from the Children’s Aid Society dated March 3, 2011, makes no reference to a blow to the back, nor to the fact that the blows were hard and painful (see Exhibit 33). This inconsistency undermines Student 3’s credibility in this regard.

Moreover, the Committee reviewed the letter on the matter from Student 3’s mother to Ms. Piette dated January 27, 2011 (see Exhibit 26). The letter constitutes hearsay evidence, and the Committee assigned it little weight. The mother contradicts herself in her letter by stating initially that she did not believe the story that the Member had hit her daughter and by stating near the end of the letter that her daughter was generally truthful and did not exaggerate. This contradiction undermines the reliability of the mother’s account. The Committee wonders why the mother would not have believed her child, if the child was generally truthful and did not exaggerate. The approximately one-month delay in reporting this incident to the school principal also undercuts the reliability of the version of events recounted by Student 3 and her mother. Student 3 had recently undergone [XXX] and was therefore vulnerable. It is unlikely that she or her parents would have waited approximately a month before reporting such an incident to the school principal, given her [XXX] condition at the time and the seriousness of the alleged conduct.

Furthermore, the Committee received no particulars concerning the aforementioned Children’s Aid Society investigation (except for Exhibit 33). Apart from Student 3, the participants in the investigation did not testify before the Committee on this subject, and the investigators did not testify concerning their procedures or findings. In the letter from the Children’s Aid Society, the investigators state that the Member denied hitting one of her students, but the Member had no opportunity to cross-examine the investigators at the hearing and the results of the investigation constitute hearsay evidence. Consequently, the Committee is not relying on the finding of the Children’s Aid Society in this matter. The allegation that the Member hit a student is a serious allegation and the College has failed to prove it.

3(g): the College failed to prove that the Member turned Student 4 around by the shoulders

The Committee received no evidence relating to this allegation and therefore makes no finding of fact in this regard.

3(h): The College failed to prove that the Member steered Student 3 to her desk by the wrist

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the College failed to show that the Member steered Student 3 to her desk by the wrist, as alleged. The Committee heard evidence from Student 3 and the Member concerning this allegation.

Student 3 is the only witness who testified that the Member dragged her to her desk by the wrist. The Member denied this allegation.

For the same reasons given above concerning the allegation that the Member hit Student 3 on the back of the head, the Committee finds that the College failed to prove that the Member pulled the student by the wrist. Student 3’s testimony is not consistent with the report by the Children’s Aid Society, which makes no mention of this incident (see Exhibit 33). Furthermore, the report by Student 3’s mother stating that the Member pulled the student by the wrist (see Exhibit 26) is not reliable. The mother’s report was not internally consistent, and the Committee finds it unlikely that the student’s parents would have waited approximately a month before reporting an incident of physical abuse to the school principal.

Consequently, the Committee finds that the College has failed to substantiate this allegation.

3(i): the Member failed to inform the school principal immediately of Student 5’s absence

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member did fail to inform the school principal immediately of Student 5’s absence, as alleged. The Committee heard evidence from Student 5, Student 3, Ms. Piette and the Member concerning this allegation.

Student 5 testified that he found the Member’s behaviour particularly discouraging on January 17, 2011. According to the student, the Member made him redo his work several times, without telling him what he had done wrong, and she erased his work so vigorously that she broke his eraser. The incident upset the student, who did not want to stay at school and therefore sneaked away during the lunchtime recess. Student 5 started to walk home, which was approximately five kilometres away from the school, during a major snowstorm when the temperature was -20° C or so. He was walking along Highway 144, a main road with traffic from transport trucks, when the mother of one of his friends (who was also a caretaker at the school) spotted him on the side of the road, went after him and took him to his house.

Student 5 testified that he went back to school the day after the incident and that the Member asked him loudly why he had run away. He started to cry and hid in the washroom to avoid talking to the teacher. He testified that he wanted the Member to stop being his teacher.

Student 5 stated that the incident affected him profoundly for at least a month. He described his unpleasant memories of the incident.

Student 5 also confirmed the timeline of the incident in cross-examination. According to the student, he left the school at about 11:30 a.m. during the lunchtime recess and got home approximately an hour or an hour and a half later (between 12:30 and 1 p.m.).

Student 3 also testified concerning this incident. According to Student 3, Student 5 did not come back to class after recess, and the Member marked down his absence but continued to teach the class without informing the office. Student 3 explained that she knew the Member had not informed the office because the teacher did not go to the office nor did she use the sound system to notify the office of Student 5’s absence.

Ms. Piette also testified concerning this incident. She stated that the after-recess bell rang at 12:10 p.m., and she received a call from Student 5’s mother at 12:40 p.m., telling her that Student 5 had left the school and gone home because “he couldn’t take it any more with [the Member],” who had made him erase his work and redo it several times (see Exhibit 21, page 719). According to Ms. Piette, the Member did not come to her office until 12:45 p.m. to ask if she knew where Student 5 was. Ms. Piette did not know exactly what time the student had left the school, but she knew it was during the lunchtime recess.

Ms. Piette discussed the incident with Student 5, his mother, the Member and the school caretaker (who had found the student by the side of the highway). In addition, she received a handwritten letter from Student 5’s mother dated January 18, 2011 (the day after the incident), in which the mother stated that her son had run away from the school because he was afraid of the Member (see Exhibit 22), and she reviewed the handwritten notes by Student 5’s mother (written on the day of the incident) describing the incident (see Exhibit 28). On January 21, 2011, Ms. Piette sent the Member a letter advising her that she was required to provide a safe and healthy environment for students at all times and that the incident could result in disciplinary measures (see Exhibit 23).

The Member testified concerning the incident involving Student 5. She maintained that the student was having difficulty understanding an in-class assignment on the morning of the incident and she asked, “Do you need glasses?” The teacher did not notice that the student was angry and, according to her, nothing out of the ordinary occurred. The Member testified, however, that when she went back to the classroom after the lunchtime recess, at about 12:10 p.m., the students told her that Student 5 had run away from the school. According to the Member, she immediately went to the office to report his absence, but Ms. Piette was already aware of it when she arrived at the office.

The day after the incident, the Member wanted to give Student 5 a giant eraser as a present to show him that she was not angry with him, but she did not have the chance. When she asked the student why he had run away, the student replied that he was angry because she had erased his work. He then hid in the washroom when Ms. Piette came to talk to him.

The Member testified that she did not feel at all guilty that Student 5 had run away from the school. She suggested that Ms. Piette call a social worker because, according to her, it was worrying that a child should have a reaction like that merely because a teacher had erased his work.

In cross-examination, the Member confirmed that she had found out near the end of the lunchtime recess (about 12:15 or 12:20 p.m.) that Student 5 had run away from the school. She claimed that she had gone to the office to inform them immediately, and she disagreed with the timeline put forward by Ms. Piette. Although the Member did not assume any responsibility for the student running away because she was on her lunch break when he did so, she agreed that the student’s safety had been put at risk.

The Committee considers that the College’s evidence concerning this incident is more credible than the Member’s and finds that the Member failed to inform the office immediately after discovering Student 5’s absence. The timeline put forward by the Member is implausible. According to the Member, she informed the office of the student’s absence immediately after finding out that he had left the school. That would have been between 12:10 and 12:20 p.m., according to the teacher, immediately after the return from the lunchtime recess. The Member also testified that Ms. Piette was already aware of the student’s absence when the Member told her. No one disagrees that Student 5 left the school about 11:30 a.m., that his home was five kilometres away from the school, that there was a snowstorm that day and that the student’s mother called to let the school know that her son had arrived home. For the Member’s version of events to hold up, the Committee would have to believe that the child could have covered a distance of five kilometres during a snowstorm (including his encounter with his friend’s mother) in 40 to 50 minutes. The Committee would also have to believe that the student’s mother called the school within that timeframe. The Committee considers this timeline frankly implausible. It is more likely that the student would have arrived home about 12:40 p.m., more than an hour after leaving the school.

Moreover, the Committee has received the official letter that Ms. Piette sent the Member on January 21, 2011 (see Exhibit 23). This letter, written at the time, states that the office was notified of Student 5’s absence at 12:40 p.m. when the parent called and that the Member did not inform the office of the student’s absence until 12:45 p.m. The letter also states that the Member did not mark any absence in the attendance system for the afternoon of January 17, 2011. Ms. Piette had no reason to fabricate this evidence, and her evidence tallies with the testimonies of Student 5 and Student 3 in this regard.

Consequently, the Committee finds that the Member informed the office of Student 5’s absence at 12:45 p.m., at least 25 minutes after finding out that he had left the school premises. As the Member acknowledged, the Committee, too, finds that the student’s safety was put at risk.

Findings

1(5) – the Member failed to maintain the standards of profession

The aforementioned findings of fact show that the Member contravened subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

Ms. Moreau, Ms. Lemieux, Ms. Piette and Mr. Venne were described as participant experts in classroom management, and in their opinion, the Member contravened the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (see Exhibits 14 and 15).

Ms. Moreau testified that the Member’s conduct was inappropriate and contravened the standards for the profession. In her opinion, the Member ought not to have shouted in students’ faces, rapped on students’ desks to get their attention or created a threatening learning environment.

Similarly, Ms. Lemieux testified that the Member’s conduct was inappropriate and contravened the standards for the profession. In her opinion, the Member shouted at her students intimidatingly close to their faces; made inappropriate comments to the students, including the comment referred to above about a student’s “common sense”; and made some students cry. In Ms. Lemieux’s opinion, students ought not to be spoken to in this manner. The Member’s conduct was offensive and adversely affected her students.

Ms. Piette, too, testified that the Member’s conduct was inappropriate and contravened the standards for the profession. In her opinion, for example, the Member ought to have reported Student 5’s absence immediately after learning that he had run away from the school, and she ought not to have upset him so much that he wanted to leave the school.

Mr. Venne also testified that the Member’s conduct was inappropriate and contravened the standards for the profession. In his opinion, the Member ought not to have spoken sharply, angrily and intimidatingly to the students. She ought to have developed good relationships with her students and honoured her students’ human dignity by treating them with respect. Mr. Venne felt that the Member had failed to show compassion. In his opinion, she demonstrated a lack of Care and Respect and failed to show Commitment to Students and Student Learning.

The Committee accepts the opinions of the aforementioned participant experts. Consequently, the Committee finds that the Member failed to show Care, Respect, Trust and Integrity, as described in the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession (see Exhibit 15). Members express their commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence, professional judgment and empathy in practice. They honour human dignity, emotional wellness and cognitive development. They must also create an environment based on trust, conducive to the development of their students’ potential. By shouting at the students and repeatedly intimidating them, the Member did the opposite.

In addition, the Committee finds that the Member failed to show Commitment to Students and Student Learning or Leadership in Learning Communities, as described in the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (see Exhibit 14). Members treat students equitably and with respect and are sensitive to factors that influence individual student learning. They also promote and participate in the creation of collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities. The Member repeatedly failed to meet these expectations. Her students were afraid of her, and a number of them wanted to stop coming to school because of her. One of her students ran away, and the teacher failed to report his absence as soon as she found out he had left the school premises. The young student’s safety was put at risk when he walked on his own along a very busy highway. Students’ physical and emotional wellness and their safety must come first for members of the teaching profession.

Although the Member may truly believe that her conduct was never inappropriate, the Committee finds that she demonstrated a lack of insight regarding what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate classroom management. The Member stated that one of her classroom management strategies made use of “constructive fear,” as referred to above. In the Committee’s estimation, the teacher’s classroom management strategies are based on outmoded concepts of teaching.

1(7) – the Member abused a student, or students, verbally

The aforementioned findings of fact show that the Member contravened subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. She abused a number of students verbally. The mere fact of shouting at students constitutes verbal abuse, in the circumstances of this case. A number of students reported that the Member shouted intimidatingly at them, and their parents submitted numerous complaints to the administration of the three schools. The principals of the three schools also testified that the Member’s tone of voice was unacceptable. She often spoke sharply and very loudly to the students, she always seemed angry and the students were intimidated. Furthermore, the Committee found that the Member stood very close to students when talking to them, which is even more intimidating.

Furthermore, as described in the Reasons, above, the Member made inappropriate comments to the students. By asking Student 1 if he had any “common sense,” the Member insinuated that the student was unintelligent. Remarks of this kind are insulting and discouraging to a student. Similarly, the Member’s comment to Student 2 asking if she had any friends and telling her “Jesus is upset with you” was completely inappropriate. The Member also made sarcastic remarks which discouraged the students. For example, she asked Student 5 if he needed glasses when he was having difficulty understanding an assignment. Comments of this kind are not acceptable. Members of the teaching profession are expected to be respectful and to create collaborative, safe and supportive learning communities. The Member repeatedly failed to meet this obligation. Her verbal abuse occurred repeatedly over a number of school years in several different schools.

1(7.1) – the College failed to prove that the Member abused a student, or students, physically

The aforementioned findings of fact fail to show that the Member abused a student, or students, physically, contrary to subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. For the reasons described above, the College failed to prove that the Member pulled Student 2 by the arm, hit Student 3 on the back of the head, turned Student 4 around by the shoulders or steered Student 3 to her desk by the wrist. None of the facts proven by the College constitutes physical abuse; the Committee is therefore unable to find that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

1(7.2) – the Member abused a student, or students, psychologically or emotionally

The aforementioned findings of fact show that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. She abused students psychologically or emotionally. The Member made a number of students cry in class, acted in an intimidating manner and was brusque with the students. For example, the teacher frightened a student by rapping a [XXX] on his desk to get his attention and shouted in students’ faces. A number of her students wanted to stop coming to school because of her; several reported that they were nervous in class or had stomach aches; and a few were so afraid of her that they wet their pants.

Members of the teaching profession are expected to create a safe, non-threatening learning environment that facilitates student development and success. The Member’s brusque and intimidating behaviour achieved the opposite effect. She created a toxic and frightening learning environment for her students.

1(15) – the Member failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act

The aforementioned findings of fact show that the Member contravened subsection 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. She failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. Specifically, her actions contravened a teacher’s duty to “encourage the pupils in the pursuit of learning,” as set out in subsection 264(1)(b) of the Education Act. The Member’s actions included repeatedly shouting in an intimidating manner at her students and often being impatient with them; she told one student who had asked her for help in catching up with his geometry homework that he was wasting her time; and several of the Member’s students wanted to stop coming to school because of her, which adversely affected their academic careers.

The Member’s actions also contravened a teacher’s duty to act as a role model for students, as set out in subsection 264(1)(c) of the Education Act. For example, the Member set a poor example for her students by making inappropriate or sarcastic remarks such as, “Do you have any common sense?” and “Do you need glasses?” Members of the teaching profession are expected to model respectful behaviour at all times.

1(18) – the Member committed an act or omission that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional

The aforementioned findings of fact show that the Member contravened subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. She committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. The Member’s unprofessional conduct took place over at least three school years in three different schools. Parents and students submitted numerous complaints about her; the Children’s Aid Society was involved on several occasions; and the Member’s conduct did not improve. The Member often shouted at and intimidated her students. She made her students cry on a regular basis. Some of them were so afraid of her that they wet their pants. The Member also contributed to a situation in which one of her students found her class so upsetting that he ran away from school during a snowstorm. When she discovered that he had left the school, the Member did not notify the office immediately of his absence, which could have had disastrous consequences. The Committee thus found that the Member’s acts would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

1(19) – the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member

The aforementioned findings of fact show that the Member contravened subsection 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. She engaged in conduct that was unbecoming a member, for many of the reasons cited above. The teacher’s intimidating and aggressive behaviour and her poor professional judgement, which could have had catastrophic consequences for Student 5 (who had run away from the school), harmed the reputation of the profession by undermining public trust in teachers. Members of the teaching profession are expected to ensure students’ physical and emotional wellness and their safety at all times. The Member’s deficiencies in this regard were highly concerning.

PENALTY

The Committee will hear the submissions on penalty at a later date.

March 26, 2018

Sara Nouini, OCT

Chair, Discipline Committee

Marie-Thérèse Hokayem

Member, Discipline Committee

Stéphane Vallée, OCT

Member, Discipline Committee

1The Notice of Hearing erroneously included the “2011-2012” school year, a reference that was amended by the parties during the hearing to include the “2010-2011” school year instead.

2In re-examination, Ms. Lemieux confirmed that the disputes concerning the SMART Board and the harassment complaint filed against her by the Member in no way affected her testimony concerning the incidents alleged in the Notice of Hearing.