PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) 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 person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.
DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Green-Johnson 2018 ONOCT 30
Date: 2018-06-15
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
Jennifer Elizabeth Green-Johnson, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
PANEL: Colleen Landers, Chair
Alexander (Sandy) Bass
Stéphane Vallée, OCT
BETWEEN: ) Christine Wadsworth,
) McCarthy Tétrault LLP, ) for Ontario College of Teachers,
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS ) assisted by Daniela Spano,
) Law Clerk
– and – )
JENNIFER ELIZABETH ) Andrea Wobick,
GREEN-JOHNSON ) Ursel Phillips Fellows Hopkinson LLP,
(CERTIFICATE #187439) ) for Jennifer Elizabeth Green-Johnson
) Rebecca Durcan,
) Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, ) Independent Legal Counsel
) ) Heard: June 4, 2018
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on June 4, 2018 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated August 23, 2016 (Exhibit 1) was served on Jennifer Elizabeth Green-Johnson (the “Member”), requesting her presence on September 23, 2016 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the allegations. Another Notice of Hearing dated August 29, 2016 (Exhibit 2) was served on the Member, requesting her presence on September 23, 2016 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the allegations. The hearing with respect to the allegations set out in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 was subsequently set for June 4, 2018. The parties agreed to proceed with a single hearing to address the allegations of professional misconduct set out in both Notices of Hearing.
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 (dated August 23, 2016) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:
(a) she failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) she abused a student verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) she abused a student physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(d) she abused a student 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 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) she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing (dated August 29, 2016) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Member 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 verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) she abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) 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);
(e) she 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
(f) she 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 3), which provides the following:
Jennifer Elizabeth Green-Johnson is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Grand Erie District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in [XXX], Ontario.
March 26, 2015
At all material times, the Student was a male student at the School.
On March 26, 2015, two students went to speak to the vice-principal of the School. They told him that they had a complaint about the Member. The vice-principal investigated the complaint.
The Student, who was not enrolled in the Member’s class but whom the Member knew well as a family friend, was in the classroom speaking with the Member about his living situation when the Student’s mother came into the classroom [XXX].
When the Student’s mother entered the Member’s classroom, the Student left without acknowledging his mother. The Student’s mother spoke with the Member and then left the classroom.
The Student then went back to the Member’s classroom and the Member slapped the Student in the head for being rude to his mother.
The Member also called the Student an “idiot” and told him to “grow some balls” during the exchange about how he had treated his mother.
Board Discipline for March 26, 2015 Incident
- The Member was suspended without pay for one day on May 12, 2015 by the Board. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the disciplinary letter given to the Member by the principal of the School dated May 4, 2015.
2015-2016 Academic Year
In or around October 2015, a student brought a coffee into the Member’s classroom. The Member has a [XXX] which the student was aware of. The Member told the student to, “Get that fucking thing out of here.”
In or around October 2015, a female student in the Member’s class went to get a piece of gum from the Member’s drawer and asked a friend if she wanted a piece as well. The Member was present in the classroom and replied to the female student, “why don’t you lick me where I fart?”
On or about November 3, 2015, while the Member’s class was working in the library on a culminating project, a student jokingly said to the Member words to the effect of, “I’ll buy you ten muffins if you give me a passing grade.” The Member replied, “You mean a bribe? I’d be able to shit for a week ’cause of all that fibre.”
On or about November 6, 2015, the Member joked about a particular male student squinting. She began talking to this male student and then called him a “bloody pedophile.”
On or about November 11, 2015, while the Member was teaching her class, a male student poked his head into her classroom and made an inappropriate comment about [XXX]. The Member told her class that there were to be no comments about [XXX]. When students asked for an explanation, she stated that that particular male student would “stare at [XXX] ass.”
On or about November 17, 2015, at the end of the school day, a student joked about masturbation. Early the next day at School, when starting a new unit on [XXX] with her class, the Member referenced the joke and commented, “It’s [XXX] not masturbate.”
On or about November 17, 2015, at the end of the school day, some male students were making rude sounds. This included a student pressing his lips together and blowing air which made a squeaking noise. The Member commented to the student, “It sounds like your ass cheeks are too close together.”
On or about November 18, 2015, during a [XXX] about whether men are treated differently than women, a student commented that women are asking to be sexually assaulted in today’s society, to which the Member replied, “I have never said this to a student before, but fuck you.” This was an emotional response from the Member driven by her own personal experiences.
In or around November 2015, the Member spoke with a few students in her class before the morning announcements about a female student in the class. The Member noted that this particular female student’s appearance had declined significantly over time. The Member commented words to the effect of that the female student “looked like a frumpy old lady.” This comment was relayed by one of the students to the female student in question. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the female student’s handwritten statement dated November 24, 2015. If the Member were to testify, she would indicate that she raised the student’s dress because of her concern with the change in her appearance (which she raised with the School’s vice-principal and guidance counsellor), though she acknowledges that the comment was not an appropriate way to deal with her concern.
Board Discipline for the Incidents in the 2015-2016 Academic Year
- The Member was given a six-day suspension without pay by the Board, which was served on February 10, 11, 12, 16, 17 and 18, 2016. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the disciplinary letter from the Superintendent of Education of the Board to the Member dated January 6, 2016.
Previous Discipline Proceedings at the Ontario College of Teachers
- The Member was found guilty of professional misconduct on January 12, 2016 and her Certificate of Qualification and Registration was retroactively suspended from December 5, 2011 to January 5, 2012. In addition, she was reprimanded and ordered to complete a course on boundaries for making inappropriate comments to several students. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee dated January 19, 2016.
Member’s [XXX]
The Member took an [XXX] during the 2016-2017 school year, during which time she [XXX].
As of the 2017-2018 school year, she has taught on a part-time basis without further issues [XXX].
GUILTY PLEA
By this document,1 the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in the paragraphs 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 her, 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) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;
(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(d) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) she understands that any agreement between her and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and acknowledges that she 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 Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
With the Member’s consent, and in accordance with section 9.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O 1990, c. S.22, College Counsel requested that the Committee combine both Notices of Hearing so that this matter could proceed in a single hearing. The Committee granted this request.
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Committee finds the Member guilty of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee finds that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 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 22 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and pleaded guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She 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 7-20 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
Paragraphs 8-20 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7).
Paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1).
Paragraphs 7-20 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).
Paragraphs 7-20 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 7-20 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 7-20 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 4), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this matter would be that the Committee:
direct that the Member 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, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
direct the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of two 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;
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 90 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, courses of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundaries and boundary violation issues and anger management subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to the course practitioners 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 Discipline Committee;
(ii) following review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioners will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed courses which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioners shall also specify the length of the courses to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;
(b) within 30 days of her completion of the courses outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioners which:
(i) confirms that the Member has successfully completed the courses and reports on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the courses.
Additional submissions of Member’s Counsel regarding the exclusion of the public for a portion of the hearing
After the Committee was provided with the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty, Member’s Counsel requested that a portion of the hearing be closed to the public so that she could make submissions regarding the Member’s [XXX]. Member’s Counsel submitted that the Member’s [XXX] was a significant mitigating factor in this matter, but that the hearing ought to be closed while the Committee received this [XXX] pertaining to the Member. Member’s Counsel presented the Committee with Ontario College of Teachers v. Evans, 2014 ONOCT 38, as an example of a prior matter before the Discipline Committee in which a portion of the hearing was closed in order to address a member’s [XXX]. College Counsel did not oppose the request to close a portion of the hearing for this purpose.
The Committee, however, raised concerns with the parties about closing a portion of an otherwise open hearing. Subsection 32(7) of the Act provides that the Committee may make an order that the public be excluded from a hearing or any part of a hearing if the possibility of serious harm or injustice to any person justifies a departure from the general principle that hearings should be open to the public. The Committee was concerned that this test was not met. The Committee did not receive any evidence to support the Member’s position that there was a possibility that she would face serious harm or injustice if the hearing remained open to the public. The Committee therefore invited Member’s Counsel to provide further evidence in support of her motion.
The Committee also noted that it had already received evidence that the Member took an [XXX] during the 2016-2017 school year, during which time she [XXX] (see Exhibit 3 at paragraph 21). This evidence satisfied the Committee that the Member had [XXX].
In light of the Committee’s concerns, and the fact that the Committee was satisfied that the evidence before it indicated that the Member had [XXX], Member’s Counsel withdrew the request to close a portion of the hearing and presented no further evidence in this regard.
PENALTY DECISION
In an oral decision rendered on June 4, 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 reasonable given the circumstances of this case. The penalty proposed by the parties is also within a range of acceptable outcomes, based on the following analogous cases presented by the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Sypus, 2018 ONOCT 9 (“Sypus”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Hockin, 2015 ONOCT 38 (“Hockin”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Hyde, 2016 ONOCT 25 (“Hyde”); and Ontario College of Teachers v. Manga, 2017 ONOCT 48 (“Manga”).
Reprimand
The Committee finds that the Member’s pattern of making rude and insensitive comments to students and her physically abusive conduct towards a student warrants a reprimand by her peers. The Member made numerous disparaging and disgusting comments to students and she also slapped a student, which is completely inappropriate. Members of the profession are expected to act as role models for students and to provide them with safe and supportive learning environments. The Member failed to meet these expectations. She made hurtful and demeaning comments to students, which included calling a student a “bloody pedophile”, calling another student an “idiot”, and telling another that she “looked like a frumpy old lady.” At least one student felt angry, sad, betrayed, bullied and frustrated because of the Member’s comments. She also swore at students on a number of occasions. Her conduct reflects poorly on the profession and undermines the public’s trust in the teaching profession. The fact that the Member has a history of engaging in similar misconduct, for which she received discipline from her Board and from the College, is concerning. 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.
Suspension
The Committee finds that suspending the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of two months is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. In arriving at this determination, the Committee considered the aggravating and mitigating factors presented by the parties. The nature of the Member’s misconduct is an aggravating factor. The Member slapped a student and made numerous rude and disparaging comments to students. The Member also has a prior discipline history, both with her Board and the College. The Member’s pattern of unprofessional behaviour is concerning.
The mitigating factors in this matter include the fact that the Member admitted her misconduct and pled guilty, thus conserving judicial resources by avoiding a contested hearing; she has returned to teaching on a part-time basis without any subsequent issues related to her conduct; and, most importantly, the Member took a [XXX] during the 2016-2017 school year, during which time she [XXX]. Given these mitigating circumstances, the Committee is satisfied that the duration of the proposed suspension is appropriate.
The duration of the suspension is also within a reasonable range based on the analogous cases presented by the parties. The Member’s misconduct was more serious than the misconduct in Sypus and Hockin, in which no suspensions were ordered. In Sypus, the misconduct did not occur over as long a period of time, it did not involve physical abuse, and Mr. Sypus did not have a prior discipline history. In Hockin, Mr. Hockin did not have a prior discipline history like the Member does.
However, the Member’s misconduct was less serious than the misconduct in Hyde, in which a three-month suspension was ordered, and the misconduct in Manga, in which a four-month suspension was ordered. In Hyde, the misconduct involved comments of a vulgar and sexual nature, Mr. Hyde had a prior discipline record, he had tried to interfere with the investigation into his misconduct, and there were numerous instances of physical abuse. In Manga, the misconduct was repeated over the course of three school years (a longer period of time than the Member’s misconduct) and Mr. Manga’s comments were more inappropriate than the Member’s comments. Mr. Manga had made numerous racist, homophobic and culturally-insensitive comments in class.
Accordingly, the Committee accepts the parties’ joint submission that the proposed two-month suspension in the Member’s case falls within the range of appropriate outcomes for similar, prior matters before the Discipline Committee.
The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and should cause her to reflect on the serious nature of her misconduct. Recording the fact of the suspension on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
Coursework
The Committee finds that the courses of instruction regarding boundaries and boundary violation issues and anger management will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The boundaries course should help the Member to understand that teachers must set a good example for students and must interact appropriately and professionally with them at all times. There are better ways to develop a rapport with students than by making crude and disparaging remarks. Members are expected to provide students with a physically and emotionally safe learning environment; they must not make hurtful and demeaning comments to students. The boundaries course should provide the Member with some much needed insight into her misconduct and will reinforce for her the need to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with students.
The course regarding anger management should help the Member to develop strategies for dealing with and regulating her emotions more effectively, so as to avoid making angry or impulsive outbursts directed at students.
The requirement that the Member successfully complete these courses within 90 days of the date of the Committee’s order will protect the public interest by ensuring that the Member acquires the insight, strategies and resources to correct her inappropriate behaviour and 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: June 15, 2018
Colleen Landers
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________ Alexander (Sandy) Bass
Member, Discipline Panel
Stéphane Vallée, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel