DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Glazer 2018 ONOCT 37

Date: 2018-02-12

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 Jean-Pierre Roland Glazer, a retired member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

PANEL: Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT, Chair Sara Nouini, OCT Stéphane Vallée, OCT

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS Charlotte-Anne Malischewski and Christine Lonsdale, McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers

– and –

JEAN-PIERRE ROLAND GLAZER (CERTIFICATE #144901) Jean-Pierre Roland Glazer was not present or represented

Renée Kopp, Jones Litigation Counsel LLP, Independent Legal Counsel

Heard: December 13 and 14, 2017

DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on December 13, 2017 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated January 29, 2015 (Exhibit 1) was served on Jean-Pierre Roland Glazer (“the Member”), requesting his attendance before the Discipline Committee of the College on March 31, 2015 to set a date for the hearing, and specifying the charges. The hearing was subsequently set for December 13, 2017 and continued on December 14, 2017.

The Member was not in attendance for the hearing and did not have legal representation.

College Counsel submitted an Affidavit of Annie Lacroix sworn December 8, 2017 (Exhibit 2), to prove that the Member had been informed of the allegations against him, the date and time of the hearing and the penalty that was to be sought. In the affidavit, Ms. Lacroix, a law clerk with McCarthy Tétrault LLP, describes in detail her communication with the Member and provides proof of service of all required documents. On the basis of the affidavit, the Committee is satisfied that the Member received the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents, and that he was aware of the date and time of the hearing and the penalty that was to be sought. The Member’s communications with Ms. Lacroix clearly show that the Member had no interest in taking part in the discipline proceeding. The Committee delayed the commencement of the hearing by approximately 15 minutes to enable the Member to attend. Because he failed to do so, the Committee heard this matter in his absence.

SUMMARY

At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil des écoles catholiques de Centre-Est de l’Ontario (the “Board”) as a teacher and taught at [XXX] (the “School”) in Ottawa. According to the College, during at least three school years, between September 1, 2010 and November 30, 2013, the Member made numerous inappropriate and unpleasant comments to students, including comments of a sexual and racist nature; was brusque and aggressive with students; and shouted at students, a colleague and the vice-principal. The Member received several warnings from his Board and support from the administration, and several disciplinary measures were imposed, but there was no improvement in his behaviour.

The Member took no part whatsoever in his disciplinary hearing and did not present any defence.

For the reasons which follow, the Committee finds that the facts give cause for a finding of professional misconduct and finds Jean-Pierre Roland Glazer guilty of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19), as set out in the Notice of Hearing. The Committee directs that the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration be revoked.

ALLEGATIONS

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

IT IS ALLEGED that Jean-Pierre Roland Glazer is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsections 30(2) and 40(1.1)¹ of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:

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

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

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

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

(e) he abused a student sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3), and/or engaged in sexual abuse as defined in Part I of the Act;

(f) 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);

(g) 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

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

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS:

1. The Member is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Conseil des écoles catholiques de Centre-Est de l’Ontario as a teacher. At all material times, the Member was teaching at[XXX], in Ottawa.

3. Between September 1 and December 31, 2010, the Member engaged in inappropriate comments and actions in front of students, including:

(a) telling one or more female students that they had [XXX];

(b) telling one or more female students that he could see their bra through their blouse;

(c) recounting that as a young hitchhiker, he got into a vehicle driven by a man who was masturbating;

(d) telling Student No. 1, a Black student in Grade[XXX], that it was Blacks who started wearing low-rise pants because they wanted to get fucked;

(e) grabbing Student No. 2 by the arm and giving him a two-handed shove towards the hallway outside the classroom, on or about December 8, 2010;

(f) saying that Student No. 2 wasn’t going to get far in life.

4. Between January 1 and June 30, 2011, the Member made inappropriate comments concerning Student No. 3 in front of other students, including:

(a) that Student No. 3 had had an[XXX];

(b) that the mark on Student No. 3’s [XXX] [XXX] was related to[XXX];

(c) on or about May 5, 2011, that he hoped Student No. 3 would get hit by a bus.

5. Between March 1, 2011 and October 30, 2012, the Member engaged in inappropriate comments and actions in front of students, including:

(a) writing a note about Student No. 4 which read, “I have real doubts about this student’s physical, mental and emotional health”;

(b) when tests were being marked, reading the incorrect answers out loud and identifying in front of the entire class the students who had written them;

(c) pulling on Student No. 5’s arm and shoving his shoulder after telling him to take off his belt and pull up his pants;

(d) on or about May 5, 2011, yelling on the phone to his vice-principal, Marc Bertrand, in front of the students, that he had sent Student No. 6 to the office;

(e) shouting at students in the classroom on a regular basis;

(f) saying that students who failed a certain test could just hang themselves.

6. Between September 1 and November 30, 2013, the Member made inappropriate comments in front of students, including:

(a) saying that students could file a complaint at the office if they were upset by the comments he made;

(b) telling the mother of Student No. 7 that Student No. 8 was not very smart;

(c) saying that if the Board suspended him it wouldn’t bother him, because he would get paid vacation;

(d) saying that he had to smoke marijuana to understand students’ assignments;

(e) on or about November 25, 2013, saying belligerently to a colleague (“Teacher No. 1”), “As you can see, I haven’t finished talking to the students”;

(f) on or about November 25, 2013, telling Teacher No. 1 that he had a class with several [XXX] students, that they were on edge and wouldn’t listen to him.

MEMBER’S PLEA

Because the Member was not in attendance at the hearing nor was he represented by legal counsel, the Committee proceeded on the assumption that he denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. The Chair of the Committee, on behalf of the Member, entered a plea of not guilty to the allegations.

THE EVIDENCE

The College called three witnesses: Marc Bertrand (“Mr. Bertrand”), Lina Piquette (“Ms. Piquette”) and Student No. 3 (as she is referred to in the Notice of Hearing). The Committee found all of the witnesses credible. They were able to recall the events clearly and their evidence was plausible, reasonable and internally and externally consistent. Their testimony was adequately detailed and direct and was supported by notes relating to the events in question that were made at the time.

Counsel for the College submitted a Supplementary Affidavit of Annie Lacroix sworn December 8, 2017 (see Exhibit 4) to explain that the College had made attempts to contact all of the students and the teacher referred to in the Notice of Hearing by telephone, letter or email, but Student No. 3 was the only student who responded. A number of the witnesses had moved or their telephone numbers were no longer in service. The Committee found the College’s explanation satisfactory.

In addition to the evidence presented by the College’s witnesses, College Counsel produced several items of evidence apart from witnesses; i.e., Exhibits 34 to 47, 49 and 50, which include incident reports filed by students and letters from the administration of the Member’s School and Board.² The Committee acknowledges that the rules of evidence that apply to the College’s discipline hearings are relaxed. If a document is relevant to the subject-matter of a proceeding, it is generally admissible, in accordance with section 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22, and Rule 13.01 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules of Procedure”). However, although the Committee can decide whether an item of evidence is admissible, it must then decide how much weight to assign it. The reliability of the evidence is an important consideration when making this determination.³ The Committee will address the weight to assign to these items of evidence if need be in the Reasons, below.

The Committee also acknowledges that a number of the incident reports by students produced in evidence by the College constitute hearsay evidence, but hearsay evidence is admissible in discipline hearings, provided it is relevant. The Committee assigned adequate weight to the students’ incident reports because, after reviewing all of the evidence, the Committee found that the reports made at the time were consistent, plausible and reliable. These documents were brought before the School’s vice-principals (Mr. Bertrand and Ms. Piquette), who testified before the Committee. Their memories of the content of the reports and their investigations were very clear, which conferred credibility on the incident reports filed by students who did not testify before the Committee.

The relevant portions of the witnesses’ testimony will also be described in greater detail as needed in the Reasons for Decision, below.

Witness No. 1: Marc Bertrand

Mr. Bertrand is an experienced educator who receiving his teaching certificate in 2000 and has since held positions as a teacher, vice-principal, principal and superintendent of education. He was a vice-principal at the School at the time of the incidents in question and he supervised and managed complaints concerning the Member. Mr. Bertrand explained that the School was in an underprivileged area in Ottawa with a culturally diverse student population.

Mr. Bertrand testified about his in-depth investigation concerning the Member. During his investigation, Mr. Bertrand met with a number of students and obtained written statements from some students who described their versions of events. He met with parents who had complaints concerning the Member and he took notes at these meetings. Mr. Bertrand also attended meetings with the Member, his union representative and a manager from the Board to discuss the complaints with the teacher. Mr. Bertrand made hand-written notes during the meetings.

Participant Expert

The College asked the Committee to describe Mr. Bertrand as a participant expert in classroom management. The College agreed to its request based on paragraphs 6 and 60 in Westerhof v. Gee Estate, 2015 ONCA 206 (“Westerhof”), a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and on the following case law from the College’s Discipline Committee: Ontario College of Teachers v. Crouse, 2016 ONOCT 99 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Douglas, 2017 ONOCT 18.

The Committee described Mr. Bertrand as a participant expert in classroom management. It found that Mr. Bertrand satisfied the criteria set out in Westerhof in view of his education-related experience as a teacher, vice-principal, principal and superintendent of education. He is well versed in the standards for the teaching profession, was directly involved in the investigation into the Member’s conduct and had formed an opinion concerning the Member and his adherence or non-adherence to the professional standards.

Mr. Bertrand’s Expert Opinion

According to Mr. Bertrand, the Member’s conduct was inappropriate on numerous occasions and contravened the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession, including Care, Respect and Trust, and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession, including Commitment to Students and Student Learning and Professional Practice (see Exhibit 5).

Mr. Bertrand gave his opinion concerning a number of the Member’s actions and comments. He testified that it was inappropriate to comment on students’ [XXX] because adolescence is already a difficult time when young people’s bodies are changing. The comment was disrespectful.

Mr. Bertrand testified that it was inappropriate to send a student to the office because the Member could see her bra through her blouse, because excluding students from his classroom while he was teaching without good reason was detrimental to their learning.

Mr. Bertrand also testified that the anecdote the Member told concerning a man who was masturbating was inappropriate, because it had no educational value. In his opinion, the Member should not have made a pact with the students not to disclose stories told in class. In Mr. Bertrand’s opinion, the Member should just have taught the curriculum.

Mr. Bertrand also testified that the Member’s comment that Student No. 2 wasn’t going to get far in life was inappropriate and discouraging. Such comments did nothing to promote student success.

Concerning the allegation that the Member wrote a note about Student No. 4’s physical and mental health, Mr. Bertrand felt that this was inappropriate because the Member was not a health care professional and should not have commented on a student’s physical or emotional state. In his opinion, that could have undermined Student No. 4’s self-esteem.

Mr. Bertrand testified that it was inappropriate for the Member to have pulled or shoved Student No. 5 by the arm. According to Mr. Bertrand, physical contact between teachers and students is not recommended.

Mr. Bertrand also testified that it was inappropriate for the Member to yell at him on the phone in front of the students. Such insubordination was disrespectful.

According to Mr. Bertrand, several students wanted to stop attending the Member’s class and the teacher had a detrimental effect on the atmosphere in class and on student success.

The Committee accepted Mr. Bertrand’s above-mentioned opinions.

Witness No. 2: Lina Piquette

Ms. Piquette is an experienced educator. Since 2006, she has held positions as a teacher, vice-principal and acting principal. She was a vice-principal at the School at the time of the incidents in question and supervised the Member. Ms. Piquette explained that some students at the School were seriously struggling and a number of students were newcomers to Canada.

Ms. Piquette testified about her in-depth investigation concerning the Member. During her investigation, Ms. Piquette met with a number of students and obtained written statements from some students and teachers who described their versions of events. She described the incidents which were reported to her.

Participant Expert

The College asked the Committee to describe Ms. Piquette as a participant expert in classroom management, for the reasons cited above and based on the same case law. The Committee found that Ms. Piquette satisfied the criteria set out in Westerhof in view of her education-related experience as a teacher, vice-principal and acting principal. She is well versed in the standards for the teaching profession, was directly involved in the investigation into the Member’s conduct and had formed an opinion concerning the Member and his adherence or non-adherence to the professional standards. The Committee therefore described Ms. Piquette as a participant expert in classroom management.

Ms. Piquette’s Expert Opinion

According to Ms. Piquette, the Member’s conduct was inappropriate on numerous occasions and contravened the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (see Exhibit 5). The Member’s misconduct included shouting at students and discouraging, undermining and ridiculing them, and he was not a good role model for them.

Ms. Piquette gave her opinion concerning a number of the Member’s actions and comments. She testified that the Member read students’ incorrect answers out loud to the class, identifying the students who were responsible for the mistakes. According to Ms. Piquette, feedback of this kind in front of the class was inappropriate because it discouraged students and undermined their confidence.

Ms. Piquette testified that the Member shouted at students in the classroom on a regular basis and that his tone of voice was inappropriate. In her opinion, the Member should not have shouted at the students because teachers ought to model exemplary conduct for their students.

Ms. Piquette also testified that the Member told the mother of Student No. 7 that Student No. 8 was not very smart. According to Ms. Piquette, comments of this kind undermine students and are disrespectful to them.

Concerning the allegation that the Member discussed his suspensions with the students, Ms. Piquette testified that this had nothing to do with the students or their learning and thus such discussion was inappropriate.

Ms. Piquette also testified that the Member told the students that he had to smoke marijuana to understand their assignments. According to Ms. Piquette, comments of this kind were inappropriate because the Member was belittling the students and their work. Furthermore, he should not have discussed marijuana with his students because it had nothing to do with their learning.

Ms. Piquette testified that the Member was belligerent with a colleague (Teacher No. 1) in front of students. According to Ms. Piquette, this conduct was inappropriate because the Member should have acted as a role model for the students instead of being disrespectful.

The Committee accepted Ms. Piquette’s above-mentioned opinions.

Witness No. 3: Student No. 3

Student No. 3 testified in English. She [XXX] from [XXX] school in [XXX] and was a Grade [XXX] student at the School during the 2011-2012 school year. The Member was her teacher for [XXX] during the time in question. At the time, Student No. 3 had several [XXX] that affected her attendance. She testified that the Member shared her confidential [XXX] information with the class, which Student No. 3 found inappropriate and embarrassing. The Member also made several inappropriate comments about her. Student No. 3 testified that the Member was mean to her and he intimidated her.

During her testimony, Student No. 3 became visibly emotional and began to cry when talking about the Member’s impact on her private life and her academic career. She was a good student who had lots of friends and a good reputation in the School, but that changed because of the Member’s comments and the rumours prompted by his comments. She lost friends because they were afraid to be seen with her in case they became the next targets of bullying and humiliation. She became [XXX] and [XXX]. She began [XXX] school to avoid any possible contact with the Member.

Student No. 3 testified that the Member’s conduct had a lasting effect on her life. Because of him, she no longer enjoys speaking or writing in [XXX] and that has limited her career. She opted to stop being [XXX] partly because of the Member’s comments. She acknowledged that the Member was not the only reason for these decisions, but was largely responsible for them because he destroyed her confidence and made fun of her and her peers.

Student No. 3’s testimony was supported by her written deposition which Mr. Bertrand had asked her to prepare (see Exhibit 48).

SUBMISSIONS ON FINDING

College Counsel submitted that the evidence produced supported a finding of professional misconduct, and that the Committee ought to find the Member guilty of professional misconduct as defined in section 30(2) of the Act. According to the College, all eight allegations in the Notice of Hearing were substantiated. Specifically, the Member contravened Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19). All the particulars of these allegations in the Notice of Hearing were also substantiated, except those in 5(f) and 6(a) of the Notice of Hearing. The evidence in this case is uncontested given that the Member chose not to attend at the hearing or present a defence.

The College submitted that the Member’s conduct was serious and repeated. The evidence concerns some 20 students. The Member made a number of belittling or uncalled-for comments to students, made comments of a racist and sexual nature to students, used inappropriate physical force with students, shouted at students and intimidated students, and his conduct overall had a strongly negative effect on many students’ learning. He attempted to cover up his behaviour by telling his students not to repeat what he said in class. The School and Board administration warned the Member several times to improve his conduct and he was suspended several times, but his conduct failed to improve. According to the College, the teacher abused students verbally, physically, psychologically or emotionally and sexually for several years. He unquestionably contravened the standards for the teaching profession.

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, the Committee finds that the facts support a finding of professional misconduct and finds Jean-Pierre Roland Glazer guilty of professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19), as set out in the Notice of Hearing.

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Committee carefully reviewed the submissions by College Counsel 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. The Committee reviewed the evidence for each of the particulars set out in items 3(a)-(f), 4(a)-(c), 5(a)-(f) and 6(a)-(f) in the Notice of Hearing and made findings of fact for each. It then determined that these findings of fact gave cause for a finding of professional misconduct. The Committee noted that it had not received any evidence from the Member contradicting the version of events presented by the College.

Findings of Fact

3(a) – The Member told one or more female students that they had [XXX]

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member made the comment about [XXX] as alleged. Mr. Bertrand testified that the Member made this comment, his notes from the time, dated January 10, 2011, confirm it (see Exhibit 10, pages 14-15), and a student’s incident report dated December 10, 2010 also states that the teacher made the inappropriate comment (see Exhibit 34).

During his meeting with Mr. Bertrand, his union representative and a manager from the Board, the Member was asked if he had made comments about [XXX] and he answered that he complimented girls and boys alike (see Exhibit 10, page 14). The Member also recalled an incident in which some students said that a student had [XXX] and he allegedly said “oh yeah” (see Exhibit 10, page 15). When the Board manager asked if had considered that a comment of this nature might be upsetting for some, the Member said yes.

The student’s incident report dated December 10, 2010 also states that the Member told students who were wearing skirts that they had [XXX].

3(b) – The Member told one or more female students that he could see their bra through their blouse

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member made the comment about the bra, as alleged. Several items of evidence concur that the Member made this comment, including the incident report filed by a student, dated December 10, 2010, in which she states that the Member said “he could see our bras through our sweaters and we ought to have more self-respect” (see Exhibit 34); the email received by Mr. Bertrand, dated October 20, 2010, which confirms that the Member sent a student to the office because her bra was visible (see Exhibit 6); and the letter from the principal to the Member dated February 14, 2011, which states that the Member made inappropriate comments about what the girls were wearing (see Exhibit 45).

3(c) – The Member recounted that as a young hitchhiker, he got into a vehicle driven by a man who was masturbating

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member made the comment about masturbation, as alleged. Several items of evidence concur that the Member made this comment, including the incident reports filed by a student, dated December 10, 2010 and January 19, 2011, in which she states that the Member would often tell inappropriate personal stories and had told them that he was hitchhiking and “got into a guy’s car and the guy was masturbating” (see Exhibits 34 and 35); the letter from the principal to the Member, dated February 14, 2011, which states that the Member “discussed a topic unrelated to your teaching duties by telling an anecdote in which you stated that you had witnessed an inappropriate act,” and that “this anecdote with sexual overtones was utterly pointless and unsuitable” (see Exhibit 45); and the hand-written notes made by Mr. Bertrand during the meeting with the Member on January 10, 2011 which state that the first thing the Member said when discussing the anecdote was that he “was hitchhiking on Rideau Street” and that “the students enjoy hearing about the experiences of ‘the old guy’” (see Exhibit 10, page 13).

3(d) – The Member told Student No. 1, a Black student in Grade [XXX], that it was Blacks who started wearing low-rise pants because they wanted to get fucked

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member made the comment about Blacks being the ones to start wearing low-rise pants because they wanted to get fucked, as alleged. Several items of evidence concur that the Member made this comment. Exhibit 17 is a report by the educator who was present when the Member made the comment. She wrote that “the Member told [Student No. 1] to take off his belt, pull his pants up over his hips and put his belt back on… The Member then told [Student No. 1] that historically this trend started with Blacks and signalled that they were ready to fuck” (see Exhibit 17). Exhibits 18 and 19 are statements or reports from two students dated November 11, 2010 who confirm that the Member made this inappropriate comment. Ms. Piquette also met with Student No. 1 to discuss the incident, and her hand-written notes from this meeting on November 11, 2010 tally with the reports by the students and educator (see Exhibit 20). Ms. Piquette testified that the three students who reported the incident are Black. The hand-written notes made by Mr. Bertrand during the meeting with the Member on January 10, 2011 also state that the Member remembered making the alleged comment and that “the Black student reacted in a big way” (see Exhibit 10, pages 12-13).

3(e) – The Member grabbed Student No. 2 by the arm and gave him a two-handed shove towards the hallway outside the classroom, on or about December 8, 2010

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member grabbed Student No. 2 by the arm and shoved him, as alleged. Several items of evidence concur that the Member acted in this way. Exhibit 7 is the incident report written by Student No. 2 dated December 8, in which the student states, “What happened today is that I didn’t understand my assignment so I went and asked one of my friends, and [the Member] grabbed my arm and shoved me so I went out of the classroom… When he shoved me he used both hands and I stumbled” (see Exhibit 7). Exhibit 8 is a signed statement dated December 8, 2010, written by another student, who states that Student No. 2 “told me that the Member had shoved him and I think he’s on his case a little too much and it’s not fair” (see Exhibit 8). The hand-written notes made by Mr. Bertrand during the meeting with the Member on January 10, 2011 also state that the Member placed his hands on the student’s shoulders and shoved him towards his work station. During the meeting, the Member also admitted that his action was impatient and may have been rough (see Exhibit 10, pages 10-11). Lastly, in the letter dated February 17, 2010 from the Assistant Director of Human Resources to the Member, the Board advised the Member that he was not to have any physical contact with students at any time, which confirms that this was a concern for the Board.

3(f) – The Member said that Student No. 2 wasn’t going to get far in life

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member told Student No. 2 that he wasn’t going to get far in life, as alleged. Several items of evidence concur that the Member made this inappropriate comment. Exhibit 7 is the incident report written by Student No. 2 dated December 8, in which the student states that the Member “told the class I wasn’t going to get far in life and, other days, he said my sister got it all and I got the leftovers, poorly taught and thick” [sic] (see Exhibit 7). Exhibit 8 is a signed statement dated December 8, 2010, written by another student, who states that the Member said that Student No. 2 was “badly brought up” and “his sister was better than him” (see Exhibit 8).

The hand-written notes made by Mr. Bertrand during a meeting with Student No. 2’s parents on December 8, 2010 also state that the parents were concerned about the Member’s behaviour towards their son (see Exhibit 9). According to the notes made at the time by Mr. Bertrand, the Member had told the class that Student No. 2’s sister “had received the lion’s share and [Student No. 2] got the leftovers” (see Exhibit 9). In addition, the parents complained that the Member had put their son in a cubicle so he could not see the blackboard. They were worried about their son’s school success (see Exhibit 9). The hand-written notes made by Mr. Bertrand during the meeting with the Member on January 10, 2011 also state that the Member said Student No. 2’s sister was “gifted at birth with a lot more” (see Exhibit 10, page 11).

4(a) – The Member said in front of other students that Student No. 3 had had an [XXX]

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member said in front of other students that Student No. 3 had had an [XXX], as alleged. Student No. 3 testified to this effect before the Committee, her recall was very detailed and her testimony was credible and tallied with the deposition she wrote at the time of the events (see Exhibit 48). In her deposition, Student No. 3 wrote, “During some of the times I was absent [the Member] took the opportunity to disclose my private life to my classmates… he told my classmates I had had an [XXX]” (see Exhibit 48, page 51). Student No. 3 testified that the Member had revealed confidential information about her health without her permission to the other students in the class. She resented the Member’s disrespect towards her and her privacy. The Member also received a disciplinary letter from the principal of the School dated March 21, 2012 which states, among other concerns, that the teacher had discussed the student’s health in front of her class (see Exhibit 46).

4(b) – The Member said in front of other students that the mark on Student No. 3’s [XXX] was related to [XXX], [XXX]

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member said in front of other students that the mark on Student No. 3’s [XXX][XXX] was related to[XXX], a[XXX], as alleged. Student No. 3 testified to this effect before the Committee, her recall was very detailed and her testimony was credible and tallied with the deposition she wrote at the time of the events (see Exhibit 48). In her deposition, Student No. 3 wrote:

… when I had a little [XXX] on my [XXX][XXX] he told on me to the class. Whenever he was talking about [XXX] and [XXX], he would always mention the [XXX] on my, which started rumours… You might say [the Member] enjoyed making fun of, humiliating and discouraging his students (see Exhibit 48, page 51).

The Member also received a disciplinary letter from the principal of the School dated March 21, 2012 which states, among other concerns, that the teacher had made inappropriate allusions about the student, in front of the class, by associating a mark she had on her [XXX] with a [XXX] (see Exhibit 46).

4(c) – The Member said in front of other students, on or about May 5, 2011, that he hoped Student No. 3 would get hit by a bus

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member said in front of other students that he hoped Student No. 3 would get hit by a bus, as alleged. Student No. 3 testified to this effect before the Committee, her recall was very detailed and her testimony was credible and tallied with the deposition she wrote at the time of the events (see Exhibit 48). Student No. 3 testified that the incident took place on May 5, 2011 when she was leaving for an appointment at the hospital. She had forgotten to mention her appointment to the Member at the start of class (although the office had been informed) and the teacher became angry with her, explaining that he was responsible for her safety. Student No. 3 said that her mother had already arrived at the School to take her to her appointment so she left the classroom. As she was leaving the classroom, the Member commented that he hoped she would be hit by a bus.

In her deposition, Student No. 3 wrote:

I gathered up my belongings and as I was heading to the door he muttered under his breath that he hoped I would get hit by a bus. The class went OHHHH. As I was leaving the classroom, he added, next time, my dear, you’ll need a note. I slammed the door in frustration. I cried all the way to the hospital (see Exhibit 48, page 52).

The Member also received a disciplinary letter from the principal of the School dated March 21, 2012 which states, among other concerns, that the teacher had expressed a wish that the student would be hit by a bus (see Exhibit 46).

5(a) – The Member wrote a note about Student No. 4 which read, “I have real doubts about this student’s physical, mental and emotional health”

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member wrote a note about Student No. 4 which read, “I have real doubts about this student’s physical, mental and emotional health,” as alleged. The Member wrote the note on Student No. 4’s test retake form (see Exhibit 13). The hand-written notes made by Mr. Bertrand on June 16, 2011 during a meeting with the Member and School and Board administrators state that the Member admitted writing this comment on the aforementioned form (see Exhibit 14, page 24). The Member received a disciplinary letter from the principal of the School dated March 21, 2012 which refers to this incident, among others (see Exhibit 46).

5(b) – When tests were being marked, the Member read the incorrect answers out loud and identified in front of the entire class the students who had written them

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member read the incorrect answers out loud and identified in front of the entire class the students who had written them, as alleged. Ms. Piquette testified on this subject, referring to Exhibit 29, which is an incident report filed by one of the Member’s students. According to Ms. Piquette, the student came to her office with the complaint and described what had taken place in class. Ms. Piquette wrote down what the student had told her and the student confirmed that her notes on the incident tallied with the student’s report. The Member took the work of a student with an incorrect answer, made enlarged photocopies of the incorrect answer and handed them out to the other students in the class (see Exhibit 29). The student also reported that the Member made fun of her if she said something incorrectly (see Exhibit 29).

5(c) – The Member pulled on Student No. 5’s arm and shoved his shoulder after telling him to take off his belt and pull up his pants

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member pulled on Student No. 5’s arm and shoved his shoulder after telling him to take off his belt and pull up his pants, as alleged. Student No. 5 wrote an incident report on the matter (see Exhibit 11). Mr. Bertrand then met with the student to ask him some questions about the incident and retranscribe the incident report for the student, whose hand-writing was hard to read (see Exhibit 12). Mr. Bertrand also met with the Member on April 6, 2011 to discuss the incident, and made a note of the teacher’s explanation (see Exhibit 49). The Member subsequently received a disciplinary letter from the principal of the School dated March 21, 2012 which refers to this incident, among others (see Exhibit 46).

According to Student No. 5’s report, he was at his locker when the Member came and told him to pull up his pants, which the student did. Student No. 5 was attempting to leave, but the Member grabbed his arm and told him to take off his belt to pull up his pants. Student No. 5 told the Member that he would take off his belt when he was changing in the locker room. The Member then grabbed the student’s backpack to prevent him from leaving, and when Student No. 5 held on to his backpack the Member shoved his shoulder. The student dropped his backpack as he stepped back (see Exhibit 12). During his meeting with Mr. Bertrand, the Member confirmed that he had insisted that Student No. 5 take off his belt to pull up his pants and had taken the student’s backpack when the student would not follow him to his class (see Exhibit 49).

5(d) – On or about May 5, 2011, the Member yelled on the phone to his vice-principal, Mr. Bertrand, in front of the students, that he had sent Student No. 6 to the office

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member yelled on the phone to his vice-principal, Mr. Bertrand, in front of the students, that he had sent Student No. 6 to the office, as alleged. Mr. Bertrand testified on this matter, and his testimony was supported by an incident report dated March 18, 2011 that he had written to describe the experience (see Exhibit 15). Mr. Bertrand’s testimony on the incident was clear, precise and detailed. He had a very clear recollection of the incident in which he was directly involved.

According to Mr. Bertrand, the Member had sent Student No. 6 to the office because she had asked him to correct a homework assignment from the previous day before beginning an assessment on the topic. Mr. Bertrand called the Member (who was in his classroom) from his office to ask why he had sent a student to the office for asking a question. At that point the Member started shouting, “Listen, all she had to do was correct her homework herself, damn it!” (see Exhibit 15). Mr. Bertrand testified that he replied calmly, “Look, we should meet to talk about this because you’re with students right now and I wouldn’t want any students to overhear the conversation” (see Exhibit 15). The Member shouted back, “There’s no need to meet, there’s nothing left to say” (see Exhibit 15).

The Member received a disciplinary letter from the principal of the School dated March 21, 2012 which refers to this incident and the teacher’s inappropriate tone, among other concerns (see Exhibit 46).

5(e) – The Member shouted at students in the classroom on a regular basis

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member shouted at students in the classroom on a regular basis, as alleged. A number of incident reports filed by students and a teacher concur in this regard and state that the Member shouted at his students (see Exhibits 20, 28, 30, 31 and 33). In Exhibit 20, Student No. 1 reported that the Member shouted at him to pull up his pants. In Exhibit 28, another student reported that the Member shouted at the students so loudly that it gave her a bad headache. In Exhibit 30, another student reported that the Member shouted more and more loudly at the students when they were giving answers in class and told her to “shut up” when she tried to give an answer. In Exhibit 31, Teacher No. 1 reported that when she came to the Member’s class looking for a student, the Member was speaking harshly and disrespectfully to the students. The student for whom Teacher No. 1 was looking reported the incident as well, stating that the Member shouted at Teacher No. 1 when she knocked on the door and continued shouting at the students when he had closed the door again (see Exhibit 33).

Ms. Piquette’s corresponding testimony states that she met with the students and teacher who had described the aforementioned behaviour.

5(f) – The College failed to prove that the Member said that students who failed a certain test could just hang themselves

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

6(a) – The College failed to prove that the Member said that students could file a complaint at the office if they were upset by the comments he made

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

6(b) – The Member told the mother of Student No. 7 that Student No. 8 was not very smart

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member told the mother of Student No. 7 that Student No. 8 was not very smart, as alleged. Two incident reports filed by Students No. 7 and No. 8 (see Exhibits 24 and 25) in addition to Ms. Piquette’s testimony substantiate this allegation. The College’s evidence in this regard is consistent and uncontradicted.

According to the report made by Student No. 7 at the time, the Member called Student No. 7’s mother to inform her that her daughter would not be sitting next to Student No. 8 in class anymore, because Student No. 7 was too talkative and Student No. 8 was not a very smart student (see Exhibit 24). Student No. 8 also reported to Ms. Piquette that the Member called Student No. 7’s home and told her mother that Student No. 8 was not very smart (see Exhibit 25).

6(c) – The Member said that if the Board suspended him it wouldn’t bother him, because he would get paid vacation

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member said that if the Board suspended him it wouldn’t bother him, because he would get paid vacation, as alleged. Two incident reports filed by students (see Exhibits 27 and 29), as well as Ms. Piquette’s testimony, substantiate this allegation. The College’s evidence in this regard is consistent and uncontradicted.

According to the report filed at the time by one of the Member’s students, the teacher told his class that he “didn’t give a damn” if he was suspended, because it would mean a paid vacation (see Exhibit 27). A report filed at the time by another of the Member’s students also states that the teacher told his class that they could complain to the office if they wanted and he would get paid for staying home (see Exhibit 29). Exhibit 29 was written by Ms. Piquette and signed by the student who reported the incident, after the student confirmed the accuracy of its contents.

6(d) – The Member said that he had to smoke marijuana to understand students’ assignments

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member said that he had to smoke marijuana to understand students’ assignments, as alleged. Two incident reports filed by students (see Exhibits 23 and 25), as well as Ms. Piquette’s testimony, substantiate this allegation. The College’s evidence in this regard is consistent and uncontradicted.

According to the report filed at the time by one of the Member’s students, the teacher told his class that “to be able to understand our assignments, he had to smoke marijuana to get to our level academically” (see Exhibit 23). Ms. Piquette testified that the student came to tell her what was going on in the Member’s class, and she had received calls from parents concerning the Member’s behaviour as well. Student No. 8’s incident report also states that the Member said he had to smoke marijuana to understand what his students had written on their tests (see Exhibit 25).

6(e) – On or about November 25, 2013, the Member said belligerently to Teacher No. 1, “As you can see, I haven’t finished talking to the students”

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member said belligerently to Teacher No. 1, “As you can see, I haven’t finished talking to the students,” as alleged. In support of this allegation, the Committee received Teacher No. 1’s incident report (see Exhibit 31), two incident reports filed by students who were present during the incident (see Exhibits 32 and 33) and Ms. Piquette’s testimony. The College’s evidence in this regard is consistent and uncontradicted.

According to Teacher No. 1’s report, she came to the Member’s class on November 25, 2013 looking for a student. She knocked on the Member’s door, and he took no notice. When Teacher No. 1 knocked on the door a second time, the Member said to her belligerently and forbiddingly in front of the students, “As you can see, I haven’t finished talking to the students” (see Exhibit 31). The incident reports filed by two additional students describe the same incident in which the Member took no notice of Teacher No. 1 when she knocked on his door, and then shouted rudely “in the teacher’s ear” (see Exhibits 32 and 33). Ms. Piquette also recalled this incident which was reported to her.

6(f) – On or about November 25, 2013, the Member told Teacher No. 1 that he had a class with several [XXX] students, that they were on edge and wouldn’t listen to him

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member told Teacher No. 1 that he had a class with several [XXX] students that they were on edge and wouldn’t listen to him, as alleged. In support of this allegation, the Committee received Teacher No. 1’s incident report (see Exhibit 31), as well as the testimony by Ms. Piquette, who recalled the incident. The College’s evidence in this regard is consistent and uncontradicted.

According to Teacher No. 1’s report, after the aforementioned incident in which the Member spoke belligerently and forbiddingly to her, the Member apologized. Clearly stressed, he said, “I’m sorry about earlier, but I have a class with several [XXX] students, they’re on edge and won’t listen” (see Exhibit 31). Teacher No. 1 told him that such behaviour was unacceptable and cut him off. Teacher No. 1 also reported that the conversation took place while the classroom door was open and she was looking for another student. She noted that the student “clearly found the situation upsetting” and he told her he was shocked that the Member spoke to her in that way (see Exhibit 31). Ms. Piquette remembered receiving the report concerning this incident.

Findings as to Professional Misconduct

The Committee finds that the aforementioned facts support a finding of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(7.3), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19), for the reasons which follow.

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

Mr. Bertrand and Ms. Piquette were described as participant experts in classroom management and in their opinion, the Member contravened the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession, including Care, Respect and Trust, and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession, including Commitment to Students and Student Learning and Professional Practice (see Exhibit 5). The Committee accepts their opinions.

The aforementioned expert evidence of Mr. Bertrand and Ms. Piquette was consistent and detailed. In the opinion of both participant experts the Member’s conduct was inappropriate and contravened the standards of the teaching profession. Their testimony included that the Member made numerous disrespectful and discouraging comments to students; that he did nothing to promote student learning and success; that he used physical force with students, even though physical contact between teachers and students is not recommended; that he was belligerent and disrespectful to a colleague and to a School administrator; and that he shouted at students in the classroom on a regular basis.

Furthermore, the Committee found that the Member made comments of a sexual and racist nature to his students. He frequently made fun of his students and humiliated them. His behaviour set a poor example for the students.

Consequently, the Committee finds that the Member failed to show Care, Respect and Trust, as described in the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession (see Exhibit 5). 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. The Member did the opposite.

In addition, the Committee finds that the Member failed to show Commitment to Students and Student Learning or Professional Practice, as described in the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (see Exhibit 5). Members treat students equitably and with respect and are sensitive to factors that influence individual student learning. They must also apply professional knowledge and experience to promote student learning. The Member repeatedly failed to meet these expectations. He undermined his students’ confidence, failed to create an environment conducive to their learning and displayed utter disrespect for his students and colleagues and the School administration.

1(7) – The Member abused students verbally

The aforementioned findings of fact show that the Member contravened subsection 1(7) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. He abused numerous students verbally. The mere fact of shouting at students constitutes verbal abuse, in the circumstances of this case. A number of students filed incident reports in which they stated that the Member shouted intimidatingly at them.

The Member also made a number of inappropriate comments to students, including making fun of them, belittling them and insulting them with racist comments. Student No. 3 testified that the Member’s comments still affect her profoundly and have adversely affected her academic career and her development. Because of him, she no longer enjoys speaking or writing in [XXX] and that has limited her career. She opted to stop being [XXX] partly because of the Member’s comments.

The Committee finds that the Member’s comments were completely inappropriate. Members of the teaching profession are expected to set an example for students, and the Member utterly failed to meet this expectation. What is worse, he undermined his students’ self-confidence and created a toxic learning environment.

1(7.1) – The Member abused students physically

The aforementioned findings of fact show that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. He abused students physically. The Member grabbed Student No. 2 by the arm and shoved him with both hands. He also pulled on Student No. 5’s arm and shoved his shoulder. The Members of the teaching profession are responsible for ensuring student safety. The deliberate use of physical force jeopardizes student safety and is strictly prohibited.

1(7.2) – The Member abused students psychologically or emotionally

The aforementioned findings of fact show that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. He abused students psychologically or emotionally. Numerous incident reports filed by students state that they felt ridiculed, intimidated and humiliated by the Member. He made fun of them and their work on a regular basis.

Student No. 3’s testimony was especially moving and upsetting. At the time of the incidents in question, she was coping with serious [XXX]. The Member shared her private information with the class. He said that he hoped she would be hit by a bus. He also said that a mark on her [XXX] was related to a [XXX], which prompted rumours about her and ruined her reputation at the School. The Member’s conduct had had a lasting effect on Student No. 3’s life, some years after the incidents in question. She became visibly emotional and began to cry during her testimony. She explained that she was a good student who had lots of friends and a good reputation in the School, but that all changed after the Member’s comments. She lost friends who were afraid to continue to associate with her and risk becoming the Member’s next victims, and she became [XXX] and [XXX]. She started to [XXX] school. She opted to stop being [XXX] partly because of the Member’s belittling comments.

The Committee finds that the Member’s behaviour is the opposite of what is expected of members of the teaching profession. Far from promoting his students’ learning, he made fun of them, undermined their self-confidence and intimidated them on a regular basis. The College will not tolerate such conduct.

1(7.3) – The Member abused students sexually and/or engaged in sexual abuse as defined in Part I of the Act

The aforementioned findings of fact show that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.3) of Ontario Regulation 437/97. He abused students sexually as defined in Part I of the Act. The definition of “sexual abuse” includes “behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by the member towards the student” and is not limited to sexual relations or touching of a sexual nature. Accordingly, comments of a sexual nature may result in a finding that a member abused students sexually.

The Member made several comments of a sexual nature and the Committee finds, therefore, that he abused students sexually. He commented on a student’s [XXX] and said that he could see a student’s bra. Because members of the teaching profession occupy a unique position of trust and authority, they ought not to comment on students’ physical appearance or their undergarments.

The Member also made inappropriate comments when he recounted that as a young hitchhiker, he got into a vehicle driven by a man who “was masturbating," and when he told the students that it was Blacks who started wearing low-rise pants because they wanted to get “fucked”. Such comments of a sexual nature are utterly inappropriate and have no place in a school environment.

Furthermore, the Member commented that the mark on Student No. 3’s [XXX] was related to a [XXX]. In addition to the inappropriateness of spreading rumours concerning a student’s private life, it is utterly inappropriate to make insinuations concerning a student’s presumed [XXX] activities.

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. He failed to comply with subsection 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. As noted above, the Member set a poor example for his students. He made comments of a racist and sexual nature, made fun of his students, ridiculed and intimidated them and used deliberate physical force against them. The Member clearly failed to perform the duties of a teacher, as described in the Education Act.

1(18) – The Member committed acts 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. He committed acts that would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. The Member’s conduct demonstrated a lack of professionalism, respect and integrity. His many inappropriate comments and actions involved a number of students. His misconduct took place over at least three school years. He received several warnings to improve his conduct and was disciplined several times by his Board, but his conduct did not improve. The Member made comments of a racist and sexual nature, belittled students on numerous occasions and ruined the reputation of at least one student who wanted to stop attending school and maintaining her [XXX], largely because of the Member’s conduct towards her. The Committee thus found that members of the teaching profession would reasonably regard the Member’s conduct 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. He engaged in conduct that was unbecoming a member, for a number of the reasons cited above. His inappropriate comments and actions (which were racist and sexual in nature) damaged the reputation of the profession by undermining public trust in teachers.

SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY BY THE COLLEGE

Counsel for the College submitted that the Member’s misconduct was serious and included a number of aggravating factors; i.e., the incidents were numerous and repeated; the evidence related to 26 students; the Member’s verbal, physical, psychological or emotional, and sexual abuse took place over several school years; he made comments of a racist and sexual nature; he attempted to cover up his behaviour by telling his students not to repeat what was said in class; and he was warned numerous times that his conduct was unacceptable, but it continued in spite of the warnings and the disciplinary measures imposed by his Board.

Consequently, Counsel for the College maintained that an appropriate penalty in the Member’s case would consist of the following:

1. a reprimand;

2. a three- to six-month suspension;

3. a prescribed professional learning course.

College Counsel produced three decisions of the Discipline Committee in support of the proposed penalty: Ontario College of Teachers v. Chéry, 2016 LNONECD 65 (“Chéry”), Ontario College of Teachers v. Foster, 2013 ONOCT 23 (“Foster”) and Ontario College of Teachers v. Towler, 2015 ONOCT 79 (“Towler”).

According to the College, Chéry is a similar case in which the member had made a number of inappropriate comments and had used inappropriate physical force. Mr. Chéry had not, however, made comments of a racist or sexual nature. His penalty consisted of a reprimand, a six-month suspension and a prescribed professional learning course.

Towler and Foster are both decisions resulting from agreements between the parties in uncontested hearings. According to the College, the misconduct in these two cases was similar, but possibly less serious than the Member’s misconduct. The penalty in Foster consisted of a reprimand, a three-month suspension and a prescribed professional learning course, while the penalty in Towler consisted of a reprimand, a retroactive six-month suspension and a prescribed professional learning course. In view of the serious nature of the Member’s misconduct, College Counsel submitted that a six-month suspension would be appropriate.

The Committee raised with the College its concerns as to the penalty sought by the College, in view of its findings of fact and the many heads of professional misconduct of which the Member was found guilty, the seriousness of the Member’s comments and conduct, the consequences of this conduct, all the aggravating factors and the lack of mitigating factors. The Committee asked for additional submissions concerning the appropriateness of a stricter penalty, including revocation.

According to the College, it is important that similar cases be handled in the same manner, and cases dealing with racist comments have not given rise to revocation in the past. College Counsel argued, however, that the Committee could order revocation if, in its estimation, the Member is intractable and incorrigible, even though that was not the College’s argument. College Counsel therefore produced an additional decision by the College’s Discipline Committee which upheld this principle: Ontario College of Teachers v. Reinders, 2017 ONOCT 62 (“Reinders”). The College acknowledged that the decision as to the most appropriate penalty in the circumstances was wholly at the Committee’s discretion.

PENALTY DECISION

The Committee makes the following penalty order:

1. The College Registrar is directed to immediately revoke the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, which Certificate the Member is to immediately surrender to the Registrar.

REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION

The Committee carefully weighed the arguments put forward by Counsel for the College and took into consideration that the purpose of the penalty is to serve and protect the public interest, maintain the high standards of the teaching profession and promote public trust in the teaching profession. The Committee finds that revocation is the only appropriate penalty in this case.

The case law produced by the College differs from the Member’s case

The three examples of case law produced by the College in support of the proposed penalty (which includes a three- to six-month suspension) differ from the Member’s case in their facts and fail to convince the Committee that the penalty initially put forward by the College is appropriate in the circumstances. Although Chéry, Foster and Towler concerned inappropriate comments and the use of inappropriate physical force, the conduct in these cases was less serious than the Member’s misconduct. None of these legal decisions dealt with sexual allegations or racist comments, behaviour so repetitive or long-standing or such total disregard for a teacher’s duty to his profession, his colleagues or his students.

In Chéry, the incidents took place over one day, whereas the Member’s misconduct occurred repeatedly over at least three school years.

In Towler and Foster, the parties reached an agreement and the Committee therefore received a Joint Submission on Penalty that was negotiated between the parties. As established by case law, in such circumstances, the Committee’s role is confined to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the discipline process into disrepute or run counter to the public interest. The penalties agreed to in uncontested cases may be less severe than in contested ones, because they are the product of negotiation and compromise on both sides. In a contested hearing, there is no compromise. It is up to the Committee to determine the most appropriate penalty in the circumstances.

The Member’s misconduct was very serious

In the Committee’s estimation, the Member’s misconduct is serious enough to warrant the revocation of his Certificate of Qualification and Registration. The penalty of revocation is not restricted to cases dealing with one type of professional misconduct in particular, such as sexual abuse. Members who are found guilty of professional misconduct are liable to a range of possible penalties, including revocation, pursuant to sections 30(4) and 30(5) of the Act.

As noted above, the Member made numerous humiliating, demeaning and unpleasant comments to some 20 students, jeopardizing the students’ well-being; he made comments of a sexual and racist nature; he abused students verbally, physically, psychologically or emotionally and sexually on many occasions over at least three school years; he attempted to cover up his behaviour by telling the students not to repeat what was said in class; he intimidated and made fun of the students; he made inappropriate comments and acted unprofessionally towards a colleague and a vice-principal; his conduct was thoroughly at odds with his duty to serve as a role model for the students; he did nothing to promote student learning; his behaviour was markedly disrespectful; he revealed a student’s confidential [XXX] information to the class; he expressed a wish in front of the class that a student would be hit by a bus; he was warned numerous times that his conduct was unacceptable and was offered professional learning and mentoring by his Board to address his behaviour, but his misconduct continued in spite of the support, warnings and disciplinary measures imposed by his Board (see Exhibits 41, 42, 45, 46 and 47); he failed to express any remorse and displayed no understanding whatsoever of the unacceptable and abusive nature of his conduct; and he showed total disregard for the students’ well-being.

The Committee is particularly concerned by the scope and impact of the Member’s conduct on Student No. 3. The student testified concerning significant damage to her reputation, loss of friends, [XXX], [XXX] and a fear of seeing the Member which prompted her to [XXX] school, resulting in a steep drop in her marks and her academic achievement.

Furthermore, Student No. 3 said that she opted to stop being [XXX] and stop studying [XXX] because of the effect on her of the Member, who taught [XXX]. [XXX] teachers have a responsibility to create conditions for teaching and learning that are conducive to the transmission of the [XXX] [XXX] and culture to ensure all students’ academic success. The Member’s belittling comments undermined the student’s confidence in expressing herself in [XXX], which also adversely affected the rest of her academic and professional path.

In addition, the Member’s racist comments were utterly unacceptable. Members of the teaching profession have a responsibility to promote tolerance and understanding; the Member did the opposite. The fact that the racist comments directly targeted Black students attending the School is especially egregious and shameful.

These aggravating factors are significant and there are no mitigating factors in this case.

The Member is intractable and incorrigible

In addition to the aforementioned numerous aggravating factors, the Committee finds that the Member is intractable and incorrigible. Although that is not a required condition for revocation of a member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, it supports the Committee’s finding as to the penalty it considers most appropriate in this instance.

Based on the evidence submitted, the Committee has no confidence that the Member wishes or is able to rehabilitate himself. It therefore finds that revocation is the only appropriate penalty in order to protect the public interest and the school community. The Member’s aggressive behaviour and unpleasant comments were reiterated over at least three school years. During this period, the Member received several warnings from his Board, he was offered professional learning and mentoring and he was disciplined several times, but there was no improvement in his conduct.

In particular, the Member was informed that his conduct was unacceptable and was reinstated in his teaching position on February 22, 2010 with several conditions following numerous complaints about him by students and their parents (see Exhibit 41); he was suspended for one day on May 18, 2010 for disobeying a clear instruction from his supervisor, which constituted insubordination (see Exhibit 42); he was suspended without pay for two days on February 16 and 17, 2011 for making inappropriate comments to students (see Exhibit 45); he was suspended without pay for four days on March 23, 26, 27 and 28, 2012 for unacceptable behaviour to students and the School administration (see Exhibit 46); and he was suspended without pay for five days from November 29 to December 5, 2012, once again for unacceptable conduct and for adversely affecting a specific student’s well-being after being told about the student’s vulnerability less than one week earlier (see Exhibit 47). The multiple suspensions imposed previously had no effect on his behaviour. The Committee therefore finds that imposing a suspension, even a longer one, would be no deterrent for the Member.

In an attempt to help him remedy this behaviour, the Board had agreed to assume the reasonable costs of training to resolve this problem. It also offered him mentoring (see Exhibit 47). However, the Member’s misconduct continued unchecked and the Member did not take these measures seriously. On the contrary, he told his class that he “didn’t give a damn” if he was suspended, because it would mean a paid vacation (see Exhibits 27 and 29). Because the Board’s measures have had no effect on the Member’s conduct in the past, the Committee finds that ordering rehabilitative training for the Member would have no effect and thus be inappropriate. The Member’s previous behaviour has shown that he has no desire to rehabilitate himself.

The Committee also finds the Member intractable. The fact that he has chosen to take no part in his discipline hearing shows his refusal to take this important College proceeding seriously. The College is the self-regulating body for the teaching profession. It acts in the public interest. Self-regulation is a privilege indicative of a profession’s maturity. It acknowledges that the members of a profession are capable of governing themselves. Consequently, the College’s members must respect the College and the discipline procedure. The Member has refused to cooperate and participate in his discipline proceeding, notwithstanding the considerable efforts made by the College⁴. He has never taken responsibility for his actions. This shows that the Member is intractable and has no intention of rehabilitating himself.

Consequently, the Committee finds that revocation is the only appropriate penalty proportional to the Member’s misconduct that upholds the principle of denunciation and will act as a specific and general deterrent in addition to protecting the public interest.

Date: February 12, 2018

Jean-Luc Bernard, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel

Sara Nouini, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Stéphane Vallée, OCT Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1Subsection 40(1.1) of the Act was cited in the Notice of Hearing. This provision was repealed, however, after the coming into force of the amendments to the Act on December 5, 2016.
2. 2The letters from the administration of the Member’s School and Board, marked as Exhibits 41 to 47, are all credible and the Committee assigns them considerable weight. They are official letters from the Member’s employer, and are dated and signed.
3. 3See Ontario College of Teachers v. Ostainvil, 2016 ONOCT 93, page 23.
4. 4See, for example, Exhibit 2, Tab H, in which the Member writes to College Counsel: “How many times do I have to tell you I have no interest in these proceedings… I trust you are not expecting me even to open the envelope containing your correspondence, because I have no desire to see anything whatsoever, ever again, from the evil and sadistic creatures who spent weeks and weeks interviewing every student I taught … Jean-Pierre Glazer, blissfully retired for the past three years, far away from those sadistic creatures.”
   Although College Counsel argued that the Committee ought not to rely on the insolent tone taken by the Member in his communications with them, the Committee finds that this is an additional illustration of the fact that the Member has no interest in rehabilitating himself. Although the other evidence mentioned above may be more important, the Committee cannot ignore the Member’s attitude towards the College’s representatives. The communications have been produced in evidence by the College and demonstrate the same disrespect that pervades the College’s evidence. The Member shows clear contempt for the authority of the College and its procedures.