PUBLICATION BAN: In accordance with subsections 32.1(3) and 32.1(4) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any students who were involved in this case.
DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Ronnie Joseph Odjig, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Vicki Shannon, OCT, Chair Robert Gagné Shanlee Linton, OCT
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Christine Wadsworth, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Law Clerk
-and-
RONNIE JOSEPH ODJIG (CERTIFICATE # 162470) Ronnie Joseph Odjig, Self-represented
Erica Richler, Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel
Heard: April 27, 2018
PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
On November 14, 2017, a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) found Ronnie Joseph Odjig (the “Member”) guilty of professional misconduct.
The Committee found that the Member’s conduct during the 2013-2014 academic year constituted professional misconduct. The Member was a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) at the time. The Committee found, among other things, that the Member had made a number of unprofessional comments to students and colleagues over the course of that academic year. In particular, the Member made disrespectful comments to a student about her weight by telling her that she was fat; he made comments to students that made them feel uncomfortable and crossed professional boundaries; and he sexually harassed colleagues by referring to one as a “sexy blonde”, by suggesting that another wear a shorter skirt so that he could see more of her legs, and by grabbing or touching a colleague’s arm or cheeks. The Member also pinched a student’s cheeks, which made her feel uncomfortable (see Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision dated November 14, 2017 at pages 76-77).
Although the Member claimed that his actions were “in jest”, the Committee did not accept this explanation. Regardless of the Member’s intentions, his inappropriate and demeaning comments made a number of students and colleagues feel uncomfortable at the School. While some of the Member’s comments (if viewed in isolation) may be at the lower end of the spectrum of professional misconduct, his comments were not harmless. They formed part of a concerning pattern of behaviour and, by making these comments, the Member demonstrated a significant lack of professional judgment (see Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision dated November 14, 2017 at page 79).
Based on this conduct, the Committee found that the Member contravened subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(18) and 1(19) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. The College did not prove that the Member breached subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.3) or 1(15) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing dated June 29, 2016.
The Committee reconvened on April 27, 2018 to hear submissions with respect to penalty. The Member was self-represented and he was in attendance for this phase of the hearing.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
College Counsel made extensive submissions on penalty in which she reviewed the Committee’s findings in detail and highlighted the key findings and aggravating circumstances in this case. Among other things, College Counsel emphasized that: the Member’s conduct formed part of a concerning pattern of behaviour; the Member had been warned about similar behaviour in the past, he was specifically told to be careful with the way that he joked with students and he received a one-day suspension without pay from his school administration, but his inappropriate behaviour continued; the Member set a poor example for students by objectifying women; students and colleagues of the Member actively avoided him because of his conduct; and the Member demonstrated a concerning lack of insight about how his behaviour impacted those in his school community.
College Counsel submitted that the objectives of the Committee’s penalty order include specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation, protection of the public, promotion of public confidence in the discipline process and the profession at large, and transparency.
College Counsel noted that the Committee has the discretion to order a penalty that it considers appropriate in the circumstances of this case, but presented a Draft Order on Penalty (Exhibit 45) and submitted that the Committee’s order ought to include the following elements:
a reprimand;
a suspension of six to nine months in duration; and
terms, conditions or limitations which would restrict the Member from returning to the teaching profession until he successfully completes a course regarding professional boundaries and boundary violations.
College Counsel presented the following five cases to demonstrate that the penalty sought by the College falls within a range of acceptable outcomes: Ontario College of Teachers v. Fair, 2016 ONOCT 21 (“Fair”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Eltis, 2016 ONOCT 58 (“Eltis”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Ward, 2013 ONOCT 93 (“Ward”); Ontario College of Teachers v. French, 2016 ONOCT 16 (“French”); and Ontario College of Teachers v. Orton, 2017 ONOCT 100 (“Orton”). College Counsel noted that these cases involve similar circumstances to the Member’s case and that the penalties were similar to that sought by the College. The suspensions ordered in these cases range from three to eight months in duration but College Counsel submitted that a three-month suspension in the Member’s case would be too short, given the serious and repeated nature of the Member’s misconduct and his lack of insight or improvement after having been warned to avoid the type of behaviour in which he engaged.
The College did not seek costs in this matter.
PENALTY SUBMISSIONS OF THE MEMBER
The Member made extensive submissions with respect to penalty, but many of his submissions were not relevant to the Committee’s determination of the appropriate order in this case. The Committee repeatedly invited the Member to focus his submissions on the issue of whether he was in agreement with the College’s proposed penalty (that included a reprimand, a six to nine month suspension, and the successful completion of rehabilitative coursework); and if not, what he believed would be an appropriate penalty in this case. The Member, however, spent considerable time re-arguing his position from the finding stage of this hearing. He submitted that he never sexually harassed anyone, that he and his family have already suffered greatly because of these proceedings, and that he believed that all of the evidence in this matter was “null and void”, among other things.
The Member also referred to a settlement from his wrongful dismissal proceedings (about which the Committee had received no evidence during the finding stage of this hearing) and he submitted that he believed the confidentiality of that process applied to his discipline matter at the College. The Committee informed the Member that its decision was not based on the Member’s wrongful dismissal process in any way; it was based solely on the evidence that was received during the Member’s discipline hearing at the College, which is a process that is open to the public.
The Member submitted that this entire matter could have been dealt with by School administration if they had adopted a reconciliation process that the Member described as a “listening circle” or a “talking circle.” The Member explained that in his community, meetings between offenders, the offended and others (such as a principal or counselor) were typically held in the presence of an[XXX], which is [XXX] to his community and is viewed as a messenger that would ensure that the truth came out of a reconciliation process. The Member described a couple of incidents unrelated to his discipline hearing in which this type of reconciliation process led to positive resolutions.
The Member made extensive submissions about his life history and his family’s reputation in his community. He explained that his family was one of the most well-regarded families in northern Ontario for many generations and that they were heavily involved in building and contributing to his [XXX] community. The Member also described his accomplishments, including his involvement in traditional dancing, his university attendance, and the wide variety of athletic and cultural activities in which he participated, and the various jobs that he held. The Member claimed that his reputation was ruined because of these proceedings.
The Member submitted that he accepted that a reprimand was an appropriate penalty in this case, but he did not believe that the Committee ought to order a suspension or coursework. Regarding the proposed coursework, the Member submitted that he did not believe there was any need for him to take a course regarding professional boundaries. He stated, “I can teach that course.” The Member submitted that he believed that he was being punished for the actions of others in his school community and that he was being treated as a “whipping boy.”
REPLY SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL
College Counsel replied to several of the Member’s submissions. First, with respect to the Member’s submission that this matter should have been dealt with through a reconciliation process at his school, College Counsel noted that the Committee already addressed this issue at the finding stage of the hearing. The Member’s principal (at the time) testified that mediation was not an option because the Member completely dismissed the complaints made against him, he was not prepared to attend mediation at the time, and because students were not comfortable being in the same room as the Member (see Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision dated November 14, 2017 at page 15).
Second, with respect to the Member’s submissions that he did not sexually harass anyone, College Counsel noted that the Committee had already found that the Member had sexually harassed female colleagues, although the Committee did not find that the Member sexually abused students (see Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision dated November 14, 2017 at pages 75-76).
Third, with respect to the Member’s submissions that he could teach the proposed professional boundaries course, College Counsel submitted that this comment is completely inconsistent with the Committee’s findings and demonstrates that the Member does not recognize that his conduct was inappropriate. College Counsel submitted that the Member’s lack of insight into his professional misconduct is troubling. College Counsel further submitted that many of the Member’s submissions show that he does not understand what sexual harassment is, and that he has a concerning lack of awareness or understanding about the negative impact that his behaviour has had on his female students and colleagues.
PENALTY DECISION
The Committee rendered an oral decision on April 27, 2018, in which it made the following order as to penalty:
the Member is directed to appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which is to be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor St. West, Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded to the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
the Registrar is directed to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three months commencing on the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;
the Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) prior to commencing a teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required (a “Teaching Position”), the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding professional boundaries and boundary violations,1 subject to the following conditions;
(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision and the Penalty Decision and Reasons for Penalty of the Discipline 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 Discipline 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;
(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in paragraph (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report 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.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Committee has the discretion to order a penalty that it finds appropriate in the circumstances of this case, in accordance with its powers set out at subsections 30(4) and 30(5) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”). The Committee carefully considered the submissions of the parties with respect to penalty and reviewed the relevant jurisprudence provided. The order set out above satisfies the penalty objectives of specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation, transparency, and protection of the public interest. The order is proportionate to the Member’s misconduct and in line with the Committee’s factual findings and legal conclusions, which are set out in the Committee’s Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision dated November 14, 2017. It also falls within a range of acceptable outcomes, based on the prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by College Counsel.
Reprimand
The Committee finds that the Member’s inappropriate pattern of behaviour warrants a reprimand by his peers. The Member agreed with this element of the penalty and acknowledged, “We all make mistakes at some point.” The Committee found that the Member failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students and colleagues. He made disrespectful comments to students, he sexually harassed female colleagues by making rude and demeaning comments to them, he pinched the cheeks of a student and he grabbed or touched a colleague’s arm or cheeks. This unwanted behaviour made those around him feel uncomfortable.
Members of the teaching profession are expected to promote safe and supportive learning environments and to model appropriate and respectful behaviour. They are also expected to behave professionally with their colleagues. The Member’s conduct fell short of meeting these expectations. The reprimand, which was delivered immediately following the penalty hearing on April 27, 2018,2 allowed the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member. It serves 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.
Suspension
The Committee received extensive submissions from the parties regarding the appropriate duration of the suspension. College Counsel urged the Committee to order a suspension in the range of six to nine months, but presented case law that established a range of three to eight month suspensions for similar misconduct. The Member submitted that he should not be suspended at all, in part because he and his family have already suffered significantly as a result of these proceedings, and because he does not believe that he did anything wrong. He submitted that if there were any boundaries that were crossed, it was only “in the minds of those who came here and testified.”
The Committee finds that it is appropriate to suspend the Member, given his serious and repeated misconduct in this case. The Committee is concerned about the Member’s complete lack of insight into his professional misconduct. While it is unfortunate that the Member and his family have had a difficult time contending with these proceedings, the consequences in this matter are a direct result of the Member’s actions. The Committee received ample evidence during the finding stage of this hearing that proved, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member sexually harassed several female colleagues, made demeaning or inappropriate comments to students, and made members of his School community feel uncomfortable. His conduct was unacceptable and it went far beyond “jesting”, teasing or joking around. To be clear: regardless of the Member’s intentions, many in his School community felt singled out or harassed because of his comments and behaviour.
The Member’s lack of insight about his professional misconduct was striking. He has taken no responsibility for his actions and he continues to believe that his wrongdoings were fabricated in the minds of those whom he offended. In response to the College’s submission that an important element of the penalty in this case should include the Member’s successful completion of a professional boundaries course, the Member stated: “I can teach that course.” The Member’s brash and dismissive attitude in the face of significant evidence to the contrary is concerning to the Committee.
The Committee has determined that a three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate in this case. In reaching this decision, the Committee reviewed its factual findings and legal conclusions, it listened to the parties’ submissions, and it compared the Member’s misconduct to the case law provided by College Counsel, which established a range of appropriate outcomes for the similar misconduct of other members who have been before the Discipline Committee. The Committee is not bound by prior decisions of the Discipline Committee but it recognizes the legal principle that like cases should be treated alike. Therefore, in determining the appropriate duration of the suspension in this matter, the Committee considered the similarities and differences between the Member’s case and those presented by the College. The duration of the Member’s suspension falls at the lower end of the range presented by the College for the following reasons.
The nature of the Member’s misconduct
As set out in its Decision on Finding and Reasons for Decision dated November 14, 2017, the Member’s misconduct formed part of a concerning pattern of behaviour. He sexually harassed colleagues, he made students feel uncomfortable by making inappropriate and demeaning comments to them, and his behaviour did not improve despite having received warnings from School administration for similar, prior misconduct. Although some of the Member’s comments, when viewed in isolation, may be at the lower end of the spectrum of professional misconduct, the repeated nature of his misconduct and the fact that he did not learn from past mistakes is concerning.
This case involves a member who simply does not understand the implications or the impact of his words; it does not involve a member who intentionally preyed on students or colleagues. The Member’s behaviour was foolish, unprofessional and unacceptable, but the Committee does not believe that there was any malice behind the Member’s actions or that he was behaving in a mean-spirited manner. The Member showed a complete lack of understanding or awareness about the impact that this conduct had on those around him. This does not excuse his conduct, but rather suggests that the Member is in need of rehabilitation and re-education as part of his penalty.
Analysis of case law presented by College Counsel
College Counsel presented five cases to the Committee in order to establish a range of reasonable outcomes in this matter, based on prior decisions of the Discipline Committee: Fair, Eltis, Ward, French and Orton. The suspensions ordered in these cases range from three to eight months. College Counsel nevertheless submitted that the appropriate penalty in this case should include a suspension of six to nine months. The Committee finds that the Member’s misconduct is more similar to the misconduct committed in the cases submitted by College Counsel that fall at the lower end of the three to eight month spectrum presented, for the following reasons.
In Fair, the member (who was a vice-principal) had sent inappropriate emails of a sexual nature to staff, she inappropriately touched a colleague on his buttocks in a crowded auditorium, and she publicly chastised a colleague on at least two occasions. Although Ms. Fair’s case involved fewer incidents than the Member’s case, her misconduct was equally serious. As a vice-principal, she demonstrated extremely poor judgment as a leader of her school community. She also touched a particularly sensitive area of a colleague’s body in a very public location, which was not the case in the Member’s matter. Ms. Fair’s penalty included a three-month suspension. The Committee does not believe that the Member’s misconduct is more serious than Ms. Fair’s, and it therefore does not believe that a longer suspension would be appropriate.
In Eltis, Mr. Eltis was found to have engaged in a number of serious boundary violation issues over the course of several academic years. Among other things, he used profanity in the classroom; made a sexualized joke to students; referred to female students by pet names such as “sweetheart”; used a textbook to make contact with a student’s buttocks; squeezed a student’s knee and asked if she was ticklish; put his hands on a student’s neck; and asked a student whether he was a boy or a girl and referred to that male student as “Mademoiselle” and “lady”. Although Mr. Eltis did not sexually harass colleagues, his misconduct was no less serious than the Member’s. It occurred over several academic years, and the Children’s Aid Society determined that there was a risk that a child was likely to be sexually harmed. As in the Member’s case, the Discipline Committee in Eltis expressed concerns about the Member’s lack of awareness and insight into the effect that his behaviour had on the well-being of students. Mr. Eltis’s penalty, which was the result of a joint submission, included a three-month suspension. The Committee does not believe that the Member’s conduct was more serious than Mr. Eltis’s conduct, and therefore, it does not believe that a lengthier suspension is warranted.
In Ward, Mr. Ward was found to have failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with students by hugging students and touching their buttocks; calling students “sexy”, “beautiful”, and “pretty”; making a number of inappropriate comments that included telling students, “I think you have such a great body”, “you’re my type of girl, I would want you as my girlfriend”, and “[your] boobs looked really good in [that] shirt”; and making students feel uncomfortable to the point where they reported incidents to the school’s youth worker. Mr. Ward’s penalty included a three-month suspension. The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct was similar in seriousness to Mr. Ward’s and that a lengthier suspension would not be warranted. While it is difficult to compare the gravity of such comments, the Committee believes that Mr. Ward’s behaviour was at least as inappropriate as the Member’s, if not more inappropriate. Mr. Ward made overt comments of a sexual nature to students, and although the Discipline Committee in that case did not believe that his conduct amounted to sexual abuse, his conduct was at least as concerning as the Member’s conduct in this case.
In French, the Discipline Committee found that Mr. French had engaged in the sexual abuse of a student or students, among other things. Mr. French told a student that she was a “naughty girl” and tapped her buttocks. He also made a number of comments that made students feel uncomfortable, he rubbed a colleague’s arms and back and pinched her sides, and said he could not help it when the colleague told him to stop. Mr. French received a four-month suspension as part of the penalty order in his matter, which was decided on agreement by way of a joint submission. The Committee finds that French is distinguishable on its facts, particularly given that a finding of sexual abuse was made in that case, unlike in the Member’s case. Sexual abuse findings are extremely serious and attract significant penalties. The Committee believes that the misconduct in French was higher along the spectrum of professional misconduct than the Member’s misconduct, which justifies the lengthier four-month suspension in that matter.
In Orton, the Discipline Committee found that Mr. Orton had made a number insulting and insensitive comments to students and that he had discussed inappropriate personal information with students, including telling them about parties he attended and about a conversation that he had with a prostitute. Mr. Orton had received numerous warnings and significant prior discipline from his Board, but his misconduct persisted. The Discipline Committee found that Mr. Orton had sexually abused students based on the definition of sexual abuse in the Act, which includes behaviours or remarks of a sexual nature by a member towards a student, among other things. Mr. Orton received an eight-month suspension as part of the penalty order in his matter, which was decided on agreement by way of a joint submission. Like French, the Committee believes that Orton is distinguishable on its facts from the Member’s case. A finding of sexual abuse was made in Orton, which is an extremely serious finding that gives rise to significant consequences. No such finding was made in the Member’s case, and the Committee therefore does not believe that a suspension of similar duration to Mr. Orton’s suspension would be appropriate in the Member’s case.
Accordingly, the Committee finds that a three-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate in this case. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member by showing him that the College does not tolerate the type of conduct in which he engaged. Recording the fact of the suspension on the public register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession by demonstrating that there are serious consequences for sexually harassing colleagues and failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students.
Coursework
The Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding professional boundaries and boundary violations will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member, should he ever return to a Teaching Position. It is essential for the Member to understand what constitutes harassment in the workplace, including sexual harassment, before he returns to a teaching position. The Member must be aware that it is unacceptable to make comments to students that make them feel uncomfortable, and that there is a significant difference between teasing, where both parties participate in a light-hearted joke, and harassment, where one party makes unwelcome remarks at another’s expense. The Member must accept that members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority and that comments, which might seem harmless in a familial setting, are often not appropriate in a professional teaching environment.
Moreover, the Committee believes that it is important for the coursework component of the Member’s penalty to be culturally relevant. While the Committee recognizes that the College’s standards of the profession are the same for all members, regardless of background, it was clear from the Member’s submissions that coursework which would incorporate [XXX] values and practices regarding reconciliation and restorative practices would be of great importance to the Member. This ought to be taken into consideration when designing the prescribed professional learning course for the Member. Although the message must not differ from other professional boundaries courses, consideration should be given to the delivery method so that the Member is able to reflect on the material in a way that will have meaning for him. The coursework should provide the Member with the necessary tools to make better decisions when interacting with students and colleagues in a professional teaching environment.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: May 31, 2018
Vicki Shannon, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Robert Gagné Member, Discipline Panel
Shanlee Linton, OCT Member, Discipline Panel
Footnotes
- The Committee had a significant discussion about the cultural aspects raised by the Member and feels strongly that the course must be culturally relevant. This should be a consideration in the planning of any coursework.
- The Committee asked the Member and the Member confirmed that he was prepared to receive the reprimand on April 27, 2018, despite his right to appeal the Committee’s decision.