DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
PENALTY DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, and Ontario Regulation 437/97 thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against Lorraine Labbé, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
LORRAINE LABBÉ (CERTIFICATE #277149)
PANEL MEMBERS: Sara Nouini, OCT, Chair
Marie-Thérèse Hokayem
Stéphane Vallée, OCT
HEARD: July 17, 2018
Christine Lonsdale of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Annie Lacroix, Law Clerk
Lorraine Labbé, representing herself
Renée Kopp of Jones Litigation Counsel LLP, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: In accordance with 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 student who was a witness in this hearing or the subject of evidence in this hearing.
The fact-finding stage of this hearing took place on April 26 to 28, 2017 and June 23, 26 and 27, 2017. On March 26, 2018, a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) found Lorraine Labbé (“the Member”) guilty of professional misconduct. The Committee found that the facts gave cause for a finding of professional misconduct, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19), as set out in the Notice of Hearing dated August 7, 2015. The College failed to prove that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.1) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, and that allegation was therefore dismissed.
Over the course of at least three school years (2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2012-2013), at three different schools, the Member’s conduct was unprofessional and failed to maintain the standards of the teaching profession. Instances of this conduct are that the Member shouted at the students, sometimes in their faces; she made several of her students cry; she was intimidating and brusque with her students; she made inappropriate comments to students; and she failed to inform the school office immediately concerning the absence of a student who had run away from the school during a [XXX] and could have been at risk. Students and their parents complained about the Member numerous times. As a result, the teacher had several meetings with the schools’ principals concerning her conduct and she was investigated several times by the Children’s Aid Society. Despite these interventions, the Member’s conduct failed to improve.
On July 17, 2018, the Committee met again to hear the parties’ submissions on penalty. The Member was representing herself and she attended the penalty hearing.
COLLEGE’S SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
Counsel for the College reviewed the material findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the Member, as set out in the Committee’s prior decision, Ontario College of Teachers v. Labbé, 2018 ONOCT 19 (the “Decision on Finding”). She then presented to the Committee a draft penalty order which, in the College’s opinion, was appropriate to the circumstances of the case at issue. The draft order addressed the purposes of penalty; i.e., specific and general deterrence, rehabilitation, denunciation of the Member’s misconduct and protection of the public interest.
College Counsel recommended that the Committee order a penalty that includes the following:
a reprimand;
a six- to twelve-month suspension; and
terms, conditions or restrictions requiring the Member to take and successfully complete one or two courses on anger management and classroom management before accepting any position that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration.
College Counsel produced five instances of case law for the Committee to show that the proposed penalty was within the range of possible, acceptable outcomes in the circumstances: Ontario College of Teachers v. Odjig, 2018 ONOCT 20 (“Odjig”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Manga, 2017 ONOCT 48 (“Manga”); Ontario College of Teachers v. O’Shea, 2016 ONOCT 84 and 2017 ONOCT 8 (“O’Shea”); Ontario College of Teachers v. Glazer, 2017 ONOCT 102 (“Glazer”); and Ontario College of Teachers v. Reinders, 2017 ONOCT 62 (“Reinders”).
According to College Counsel, the penalties in Glazer and Reinders were more severe than that proposed in the Member’s case, because the misconduct in those two cases was considerably more serious than the Member’s misconduct. The misconduct in Odjig, Manga and O’Shea was more like the Member’s behaviour, however, and the penalties in these three legal decisions were therefore similar to the penalty proposed in the Member’s case.
MEMBER’S SUBMISSIONS ON PENALTY
According to the Member, the facts in the case law produced by the College differed from those in the case at issue. Unlike the College’s case law, the Member did not abuse students physically and, according to the teacher, the fact that she had filed a complaint of harassment with the school board was a distinguishing factor. The Member also reiterated a number of the concerns she had raised in the fact-finding stage of the hearing; i.e., she considered that the complaint against her was vexatious and malicious, and that the allegations against her were “set up.” In addition, she disagreed with the Committee’s findings. She stated, however, that she “couldn’t care less” about the penalty, because she had no intention of returning to teaching in Ontario.
RESPONSE BY THE COLLEGE AS TO PENALTY
College Counsel replied that the Member’s position that the allegations had been “set up” against her showed that the teacher lacked insight into her misconduct and had not taken responsibility for her actions. Concerning the Member’s position that she “couldn’t care less” about the penalty because she had no intention of returning to teaching in Ontario, College Counsel argued that the penalty was still important because the Committee was responsible for protecting the public interest and because the Member could change her mind and decide to return to teaching.
ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS AS TO THE NEED FOR A REPRIMAND
The Committee had asked the parties to provide additional submissions concerning the need for a reprimand as an element of the penalty in this matter, given that the Member had no intention of returning to teaching in Ontario.
College Counsel argued that a reprimand was not a compulsory penalty in this case and that the Committee had discretionary power in this regard, in accordance with subsection 30(5) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996. It is the College’s practice, however, to ask for a reprimand in all cases in which revocation is not included in the penalty. College Counsel reiterated that, even though the Member did not currently intend to return to teaching, she could change her mind and a reprimand was therefore an important element of the penalty. A reprimand would allow the Committee to address its concerns directly to the teacher, which should serve as a specific deterrent for her. In view of the Member’s lack of insight into her misconduct, College Counsel explained that a reprimand was another opportunity for the Committee to speak directly to the teacher and tell her how she would need to improve her behaviour should she ever decide to return to teaching in Ontario.
The Member did not make any additional submissions concerning the need for a reprimand as an element of the penalty in this matter.
PENALTY DECISION
In an oral decision handed down on July 17, 2018, the Committee ordered the following penalty:
The Discipline Committee directs that before accepting a position that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member is to appear before the Discipline Committee to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the College’s offices at 101 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the public register.
The Committee directs the Registrar to suspend the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration for a period of six months from the date of the Committee’s order in this matter, and the fact of the suspension is be recorded on the public register.
The Committee directs the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations is to be recorded on the public register:
(a) Before accepting a position that requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member must, at her own expense, enroll in and pass one or two courses, pre-approved by the Registrar, on anger management and classroom management, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide the provider of course(s) approved by the Registrar with a copy of the decision regarding the Discipline Committee’s conclusion and reasons, and a copy of the decision regarding the Discipline Committee’s penalty and reasons;
(ii) after a review of the documents mentioned in paragraph (i) above, the course provider will provide the Registrar, for approval, with a program for the proposed courses, that will specifically address the Discipline Committee’s concerns concerning the Member’s professional misconduct. The program proposed by the course provider must also specify the length of said courses and their objectives;
(b) Within the 30 days following the end of the above-mentioned courses, the Member must provide the Registrar with written proof by the provider attesting that:
(i) the Member successfully passed the courses and explaining her progress with respect to the stated objectives of said courses.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Committee carefully reviewed the submissions on penalty by the parties, the case law produced and the draft penalty order put forward by the College. In the Committee’s estimation, the aforementioned penalty satisfies the purposes of penalty; i.e., deterrence, rehabilitation, transparency and the protection of the public interest, and is proportionate to the Member’s misconduct. In addition, the penalty falls within the acceptable range of penalties for similar conduct, based on the case law produced by Counsel for the College.
Reprimand
In the Committee’s estimation, the Member warrants a reprimand by her peers, should she decide to return to teaching in Ontario, in view of her unprofessional conduct over at least three school years in three different schools. The Committee finds it concerning that numerous complaints were made against the member by parents and students, that the Children’s Aid Society was involved on several occasions and that the Member’s conduct did not improve. The Member often shouted at and intimidated her students. She made her students cry on a regular basis. Some of them were so afraid of her that they wet their pants. The Member also contributed to a situation in which one of her students found her class so upsetting that he ran away from school during a snowstorm. When she discovered that he had left the school, the teacher did not notify the office immediately of his absence, which could have had disastrous consequences. This behaviour is unacceptable and is part of a pattern of repeated behaviour.
A reprimand allows the Committee to address its concerns directly to the teacher and advise her to improve her behaviour should she ever decide to return to teaching in Ontario. One purpose of recording the fact of the reprimand on the public register will be to serve as a general deterrent for members of the teaching profession.
Suspension
In view of the seriousness of the Member’s misconduct, the Committee finds that a six-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. There are numerous aggravating factors in this case: the Member’s misconduct was serious and long-standing; her misconduct was repeated at three different schools; the Member has shown no remorse and no insight into the effect of her behaviour on her students; and the Member failed to notify the school office immediately of the absence of a student who had run away during a [XXX], which could have had disastrous consequences.
The Member did not present any mitigating factors in her submissions. Although she emphasized her disagreement with the Committee’s findings, her belief that the allegations had been “set up” against her and the fact that she had filed a harassment complaint with the school board, this does not excuse her misconduct. The penalty stage of a hearing is not the time to challenge the Committee’s findings, which have been substantiated. Furthermore, the Member’s filing of a complaint with the school board in no way changes the fact that the teacher’s behaviour constituted professional misconduct many times over. Among other behaviours, the Member shouted at the students, sometimes in their faces;1 she made several of her students cry;2 she was intimidating and brusque with her students;3 and she failed to inform the school office immediately concerning the absence of a student, which put his safety at risk.4
Consequently, the Committee finds that a six-month suspension is appropriate in the circumstances. Furthermore, the length of the suspension falls within a reasonable range, based on the case law produced by College Counsel. The Member’s misconduct was more serious than that in Odjig and Manga, which resulted in suspensions of three and four months respectively. One of the aggravating factors making the Member’s misconduct more serious than the misconduct in Odjig and Manga (which warrants a suspension longer than four months) is that the Member’s poor professional judgement could have had disastrous consequences for a young student who had run away from the school. Students’ safety is one of teachers’ chief responsibilities. If the Member had notified the office immediately of the student’s absence, he might have been found earlier, which would have lessened the risk to the student’s safety.
But the Member’s misconduct was less serious than the misconduct in Glazer and Reinders, in which revocation was ordered. In Glazer, the member abused students physically and sexually, among other misconduct. In Reinders, the member abused students physically, among other misconduct. This behaviour warrants a stricter penalty than the Member’s.
While the Member’s case is not identical to O’Shea, the Committee is aware that all cases are different and finds that the gravity of the misconduct in O’Shea was comparable to the Member’s misconduct. In O’Shea, a six-month suspension was ordered. The Committee finds that a six-month suspension is appropriate in the Member’s case as well.
Although the Member is not currently teaching in Ontario and thus the suspension will not serve as a specific deterrent for her, recording the fact of the suspension on the public register will serve as a general deterrent for members of the teaching profession. The suspension makes it clear to the other members that such misconduct has serious consequences.
Compulsory Professional Learning Courses
The Committee finds that the course or courses on anger management and classroom management will assist the Member with her rehabilitation, should she return to teaching in Ontario. The course on anger management is important in view of the Member’s intimidating behaviour. The teacher admitted that she struck a ruler on a student’s desk so hard that the plastic tip came off.5 In addition, she often spoke sharply and very loudly to the students, she always seemed angry and she shouted at the students while standing very close to them.6 The Committee expects members of the teaching profession to remain calm and serve as a role model for students. The Member’s behaviour indicates that she found this difficult. A course on anger management is therefore appropriate, because it will provide her with strategies for keeping her emotions in check, should she ever decide to return to teaching in Ontario.
The Committee finds that the course on classroom management is important to update the Member’s knowledge of classroom management should she return to teaching in Ontario. Although the Member stated that she had already taken several courses on classroom management, she did not produce any evidence in this regard, and the Committee continues to find her classroom management concerning, her alleged professional learning notwithstanding. During the fact-finding stage of the hearing, the Member explained that one of her classroom management strategies made use of “constructive fear.”7 The Committee finds that such classroom management strategies are based on outmoded concepts of teaching and that updating would therefore be appropriate before the Member returns to teaching in Ontario.
The Committee therefore finds that the penalty is proportionate in the circumstances, and serves and protects the public interest.
August 3, 2018
Sara Nouini, OCT
Chair, Discipline Committee
Marie-Thérèse Hokayem
Member, Discipline Committee
Stéphane Vallée, OCT
Member, Discipline Committee