DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Stodola 2018 ONOCT 22

Date: 2018-04-25

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against

Nicholas Stephen Stodola, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Ravi Vethamany, OCT, Chair

Godwin Ifedi

Sara Nouini, OCT

BETWEEN: )

) Zirka Jakibchuk,

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) for Ontario College of Teachers

) and Fiona Wang, Student-at-Law

– and – )

NICHOLAS STEPHEN STODOLA ) Vanora Simpson,

(CERTIFICATE #490284) ) Goldblatt Partners LLP, ) for Nicholas Stephen Stodola

) Robin McKechney,

) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel

) ) Heard: April 25, 2018

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on April 25, 2018 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated December 5, 2017 (Exhibit 1) was served on Nicholas Stephen Stodola (the “Member”), inviting the Member to participate in the scheduling of the hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for April 25, 2018.

The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had legal representation. The Committee was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.

THE ALLEGATIONS

The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:

IT IS ALLEGED that Nicholas Stephen Stodola is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:

(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);

(b) he abused a student, or students, verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

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

(e) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);

(f) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and

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

AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS

College Counsel presented the Committee with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:

Nicholas Stephen Stodola is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. In June 2005, the Member obtained a Certificate of Qualification and Registration. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as an elementary teacher in Toronto, Ontario.
During the 2015-2016 academic year, the Member taught the [XXX] and [XXX] at [XXX] School (the “School”).
At all material times, Student 1 was a [XXX]-year-old female student at the School and Student 2 was an [XXX]-year-old female student at the School.
During the 2015-2016 academic year, the Member made inappropriate physical contact with Students 1 and 2.
The first incident occurred when the Member was on yard duty at the School. Student 1 was playing on the [XXX] when it was not her grade’s day. The Member asked her to come off. When she did not comply, the Member pulled Student 1 by the shirt and away from the [XXX].
The Member then brought Student 1 to the office and yelled at her in a threatening manner, asking for her name so that he could call her parents.
The second incident occurred during [XXX] class. The students were dancing in a line formation. The Member asked Student 2 to get back into line. When she did not comply, the Member pulled her back three times by her [XXX].

Board Investigation and Decision

The Board conducted an investigation and substantiated the allegations of inappropriate physical contact.
On June 30, 2016, the Board issued a letter of discipline to the Member and suspended him without pay for two days effective September 6 and 7, 2016. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” is a copy of the Board’s discipline letter dated June 30, 2016.

GUILTY PLEA

By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-10 above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:

(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;

(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;

(c) he understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;

(d) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;

(e) he understands that any agreement between his counsel and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee; and

(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.

In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct

DECISION

Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties , the Committee rendered an oral decision on April 25, 2018 finding the Member guilty of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee found that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

Paragraphs 5-9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).

Paragraph 7 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrates that the Member abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7).

Paragraphs 5, 6, 8 and 9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1).

Paragraph 7 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrates that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).

Paragraphs 5-9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).

Paragraphs 5-9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).

Paragraphs 5-9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY

Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this matter would be that the Committee:

direct the Member to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, the fact of the reprimand to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
direct the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:

(a) within 120 days of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction in classroom management, pre-approved by the Registrar, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner, approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Committee;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member and the assignments to be completed by the Member; and

(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate from the course practitioner:

(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.

PENALTY DECISION

In an oral decision rendered on April 25, 2018, the Committee accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the parties and made an order in accordance with its terms, as set out above.

REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

The Committee accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Committee recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Committee’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. The Committee finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and is reasonable given the circumstances of this case. The penalty proposed by the parties is also within a reasonable range, based on the following analogous cases presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Parent, 2017 ONOCT 61 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Gera, 2016 LNONCTD 70.

The Committee finds that the Member’s aggressive behaviour towards students warrants a reprimand by his peers. The Member acted inappropriately when he pulled Student 1 by the shirt in the school yard and then yelled at her in a threatening manner. Further, the Member pulled Student 2 by her [XXX] three times to get her to return to her place in line during a [XXX] routine in [XXX] class. Members of the teaching profession are expected to foster safe and supportive learning communities. It is unacceptable for teachers to behave in a rough or aggressive manner with students. Members of the teaching profession are also expected to model respectful behaviour for students. By yelling at a student and by grabbing students by their clothes, the Member fell short of meeting this expectation. The reprimand will allow the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.

The Committee asked why the Member was given 120 days to enrol in and successfully complete the course, as opposed to 90 days, and the Committee was told by Member’s Counsel that due to the specific nature of the course the extra time was required. The Committee finds that the course of instruction in classroom management will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher, will provide him with new strategies to engage appropriately with students who are not complying with his directives, and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.

The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: April 25, 2018

Ravi Vethamany, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel