DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Hall 2018 ONOCT 55

Date: 2018-10-25

DECISION ON FINDING AND REASONS FOR DECISION

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

Gail Louise Hall, a retired member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

GAIL LOUISE HALL (REGISTRATION #210463)

PANEL: Vicki Shannon, OCT, Chair Godwin Ifedi Sara Nouini, OCT

HEARD: February 14 and 15, 2018

Janice Duggan for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Fiona Wang, Student-at-Law, Nicholas Woloszcuk, Paralegal Placement Student, and Tatiana Tkatch, Law Clerk

Gail Louise Hall, self-represented

Julie Maciura of Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel

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.

This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on February 14 and 15, 2018 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing (Exhibit 1) dated November 24, 2016 was served on Gail Louise Hall (the “Member”) requesting her presence on December 5, 2016 to set a date for hearing, and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for February 14, 2018 and continued on February 15, 2018.

The Member was self-represented and was not in attendance during the hearing.

Counsel for the College submitted two affidavits to show that the Member had been informed of the allegations against her, the time and date of the hearing, as well as the penalty being sought by the College. In the Affidavit of Tatiana Tkatch (Exhibit 2) sworn on February 8, 2018, Ms. Tkatch, a law clerk with the College, outlines the various communications with the Member and her counsel and provides proof of service of all required documents. College Counsel was advised on December 16, 2017 that the Member’s then solicitor was removing herself as counsel of record for the Member.

On December 7, 2016, the Member’s then solicitor was served with a copy of the Notice of Hearing and a disclosure brief. In a letter dated August 14, 2017, the Member’s then solicitor advised College Counsel that the Member was aware of the College’s intention to proceed to a Discipline Hearing. On January 30, 2018, Fiona Wang, an articling student with the College, sent a letter to the Member’s last known address and email address. In this letter, Ms. Wang advised the Member that a hearing was formally scheduled for February 14 and 15, 2018, and enclosed a copy of an additional disclosure brief, a list of witnesses the College intended to call at the Member’s hearing, and a copy of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee and of the Fitness to Practise Committee (the “Rules”). Attached at Tabs I and J of Exhibit 2 is a copy of the Canada Post Registered Mail confirmation of delivery, and a copy of a signature of the recipient. On February 5, 2018, Ms. Wang sent a letter to the Member’s last known address and email address advising her of the penalty that the College could be seeking if the Discipline Committees makes a finding of professional misconduct. In this letter, Ms. Wang enclosed a copy of a second additional disclosure brief. Attached at Tabs L and M of Exhibit 2 is a copy of the Canada Post Registered Mail confirmation of delivery, and a copy of a signature of the recipient. However, in the Affidavit of Tatiana Tkatch (Exhibit 3) sworn on February 13, 2018, the letter and enclosed package to Member from February 5, 2018, was returned to the College by Canada Post on February 12, 2018, and was marked “moved”.

College Counsel submitted that despite the fact that the February 5, 2018 package had been returned to the College, the Member had nonetheless been properly served. First, the initial Notice of Hearing was properly served on the Member’s then solicitor. Therefore, the Member had both actual and procedural notice of the matter. Second, College Counsel submitted that according to subsection 31.01 of the College’s bylaws, the Member has an obligation to keep the College informed of her current contact information. The College therefore properly served the Member at her last known mailing address with the additional disclosure briefs, a copy of the Rules, a witness list, and the penalty the College could seek if the Committee made a finding of professional misconduct. Furthermore, the emails sent to the Member at the last known email address did not bounce back.

Based on this affidavit evidence and College Counsel’s submissions, the Committee was satisfied that the Member had been properly served with the Notice of Hearing and all disclosure documents and was aware of the time and date of the hearing and the penalty being sought by the College. The Committee delayed the start of the hearing by approximately 15 minutes to allow the Member time to appear. The Member did not appear. The Committee therefore heard this matter in the absence of the Member.

PUBLICATION BAN

The College sought and the Committee ordered a publication ban pursuant to section 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”). Accordingly, 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.

OVERVIEW

Between the academic years of 2008 and 2012, the Member allegedly engaged in several incidents of inappropriate conduct involving 12 students. The Member’s alleged misconduct included inappropriate physical contact involving Students 1, 2, 3 and 4; and inappropriate comments to Students 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

The Committee’s task is to determine whether the facts alleged by the College have been proven on a balance of probabilities and if so, whether the Member’s conduct gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. For the reasons that follow, the Committee finds the Member guilty of professional misconduct under each head of misconduct set out below.

THE ALLEGATIONS

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

IT IS ALLEGED that Gail Louise Hall is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in 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, or students, verbally contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);

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

(d) she abused a student, or students, 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).

PARTICULARS OF THESE ALLEGATIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS

1. Gail Louise Hall is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

2. At all material times, the Member was employed by the Upper Grand District School Board (the “Board”) as an [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”) in Guelph, Ontario.

3. At all material times, Students 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13 were male students in the Member’s class at the School. At all material times, Students 2, 5, 10 and 11 were female students in the Member’s class at the School.

4. During the 2010-2011 school year, the Member made inappropriate physical contact with students, including, but not limited to:

(a) taking hold of Student 1’s arm and shaking it because he interrupted the Member’s conversation; and

(b) on or about December 10, 2010, pushing Student 2 out the door because she was taking too long getting ready for recess;

5. During the 2011-2012 school year, the Member made inappropriate physical contact with students, including, but not limited to:

(a) taking hold of Student 3 by the shoulders and shaking him; and

(b) on or about February 8, 2012, putting her hands on a male student’s shoulder and physically shaking him and yelling, “You are supposed to be cleaning up”;

6. During the 2012-2013 school year, the Member allowed Student 3 to clean up glass with his fingers after he had broken a glass jar;

7. On or about January 10, 2013, the Member pushed Student 4 into his desk, took him by the shoulders and shook him;

8. In or about October 2012, the Member did not allow Student 5 to go to the office to get ice after she had fallen and hit her head;

9. While on lunch duty, the Member did not intervene when there were problems with students in the classroom;

10. The Member made inappropriate comments to students, including, but not limited to:

(a) in 2008, taking Student 6’s book and slamming it down in front of him and saying, “If you can’t do this work, then I am going to lower you to a different level”;

(b) in 2009, pulling students’ lunches out and telling the class that the food was unhealthy;

(c) during the 2011-2012 school year, telling Student 7 that his Mother would not like his Mother’s Day artwork because the sun was too big;

(d) during the 2011-2012 school year, after the Member approved his project, telling Student 8 that his train station could not be included in the class pioneer village;

(e) during the 2011-2012 school year, allowing another student to complete Student 9’s artwork while Student 9 was on vacation and then holding up the finished artwork in front of the class and telling the class what Student 9 could do to make his artwork better;

(f) during the 2012-2013 school year, telling Student 10 that she was not “smart” and insulting her work by saying, “that’s bad”;

(g) in or about November 2012, telling Student 10 that her work was not as good as her sister’s work;

(h) in or about November 2012, after getting upset with the male students, telling them, “Baby, do I need to change your diapers?”;

(i) in or about November 2012, ripping the paper away from a male student when he got paint on his arm and saying, “Forget it, you’re not doing it. You can sit there and do nothing”, which the student did;

(j) in or about November 2012, telling Student 4 to go home and put his arms around anyone in his household who smokes and say, “I don’t want you to die”;

(k) in or about December 2012, telling Student 4 to remove pink pants from the Nutcracker that he was making and replace them with red or blue pants and then telling the male students that if they wore pink that they would grow up to be homosexual men and that only homosexuals wore pink;

(l) having Student 11 stand in from [sic] of the class at snack time and telling the class that Student 11 would be the smartest student because she had the most nutritious snack;

(m) making students re-do their artwork if it was not completed according to the Member’s specifications and telling the students in a negative tone, “Oh no, that’s not right, you need to do that again”;

(n) yelling at students when they would forget instructions and saying things such as, “Can’t you listen?”, “Can’t you follow instructions?”, “Did I say to do that?”; and

(o) yelling at students during Dance if they could not follow different movement patterns;

11. During the 2012-2013 school year, the Member threw Student 12’s eye glasses across the classroom;¹

12. During the 2012-2013 school year, the Member ripped Student 13’s artwork in front of the class;

13. In or about November 2012, the Member showed students a video where children were being removed from their parents and sent to concentration camps and told the students that Hitler took the children because their parents were not the right people; and

14. In or about November 2012, the Member showed students videos of heart operations as a means of telling them to eat healthy.

15. Effective January 23, 2013, the Member was placed on Board-directed leave with pay.

16. Effective June 30, 2014, the Member resigned from the Board.

17. Effective April 27, 2015, the Member retired from the College.

THE MEMBER’S PLEA

As the Member was not present, the Committee proceeded on the basis that the Member denied the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. The Chair, on behalf of the Member, entered a plea of not guilty to the allegations.

THE EVIDENCE

The College presented oral and documentary evidence in order to prove the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing. Relevant portions of this evidence are set out in greater detail, as needed, in the Committee’s reasons for decision below. The following is a brief summary of the College’s evidence.

Exclusion of witnesses

The College sought and the Committee ordered that the witnesses in this matter be excluded from the hearing until called to give evidence, in accordance with Rule 13.12 of the Rules.

The College’s witnesses

The College called the following nine witnesses:

(1) The mother of Student 4 and Student 11;

(2) Student 4, one of the Member’s students;

(3) The mother of a male student not specifically referred to in the Notice of Hearing (“Male Student’s Mother”);

(4) A male Student not specifically referred to in the Notice of Hearing, who was one of the Member’s students (“Male Student”);

(5) Allison Jane Campbell (“Colleague 1”), a teacher at the School during the time of the events in question;

(6) Catherine Elizabeth Singh (“Colleague 2”), a teacher at the School during the times of the events in question;

(7) Pamela Mundy (“Colleague 3”), an educational assistant that worked in the Member’s class;

(8) Susan Guest (the “Principal”), the principal at the School at the time of the events in question; and

(9) Celese Fletcher (the “Investigator”), the independent investigator hired by the Principal to investigate the allegations against the Member.

For the reasons set out below, the Committee found that the nine witnesses’ evidence was generally credible and consistent with respect to all material facts. Although there were minor inconsistencies between their accounts, the Committee does not find that these types of minor discrepancies are material or diminished the witnesses’ credibility about the key facts at issue.

As the Member chose not to participate in the hearing, no evidence was presented in her defence.

Mother of Students 4 and 11’s Testimony

The Mother of Students 4 and 11 testified about the Member’s inappropriate interactions with her children. She testified that, in the 2008-2009 academic year, the Member singled out Student 11 in front of the class. She testified further that in the 2012-2013 academic year the Member grabbed, pushed, and shook Student 4 and made inappropriate comments to him.

The Mother of Students 4 and 11 testified about how she learned about the above noted incidents, her disclosure of the incidents to the Principal, and her involvement in the investigation into the Member’s misconduct. She also testified about how the Member’s interactions with her children negatively affected them.

Student 4’s Testimony

Student 4 testified that the Member was his teacher in his split Grade [XXX] and Grade [XXX] class. He stated that the during an art project the Member grabbed him by the shoulders and shook him. Student 4 also testified that the Member told him he could not use pink pants on his Nutcracker art project because that meant he would grow up to be a “homosexual”.

Student 4 testified about how he disclosed the above noted incidents to his mother. He testified further about the negative impact the Member’s behaviour had on him and the counselling he received as a result of the Member’s conduct.

Male Student’s Mother’s Testimony

The Male Student’s Mother testified about volunteering in the Member’s classroom and about the Member’s behaviour generally. She stated that the Member had a bad reputation and that is why the Male Student’s Mother wanted to volunteer in her classroom.

The Male Student’s Mother testified that the Member taught her son when he was in Grade [XXX]. She stated that during the 2011-2012 academic year the Member made several inappropriate comments to her son, which included telling him that his art work was not good enough, and asking him if she needed to “change his diapers” (or words to that effect). Further, the Male Student’s Mother testified about how the Member ripped up her son’s artwork and threw it in the garbage. She also testified about inappropriate comments made to other students, including calling one student a “little baby” (or words to that effect).

The Male Student’s Mother testified about how she learned about these incidents, her disclosure of the incidents to the Principal, and her involvement in the investigation into the Member’s misconduct.

Male Student’s Testimony

The Male Student testified that the Member was his teacher in Grade [XXX], during the 2011-2012 academic year. He testified about the inappropriate comments the Member would make, including commenting that his artwork was not good enough in front of the class, asking him if he should be wearing diapers, and telling another student to stop “sipping on his baby cup” (or words to that effect).

The Male Student testified about how he disclosed these incidents to his mother, and how the Member’s conduct had a negative impact on him.

Colleague 1’s Testimony

Colleague 1 has been a member in good standing with the College since June 1993, and started teaching at the School in 2010. She testified about her interactions with the Member, as well as the various concerns shared with her by students and students’ parents regarding the Member. Colleague 1 further testified about her involvement with the Board’s investigation into the Member’s misconduct and the information she disclosed to the Investigator.

Colleague 2’s Testimony

Colleague 2 has been a member in good standing with the College since August 1998, and started teaching at the School in 1998. She testified about her interactions with the Member and how they worked together when the Member first started teaching at the School. Colleague 2 gave evidence about the various concerns shared with her by multiple students. She further testified about her involvement with the Board’s investigation into the Member’s misconduct and the information she disclosed to the Investigator.

Colleague 3’s Testimony

Colleague 3 has been an Educational Assistant (“EA”) with the Board for 15 years, and worked at the School from 2003-2015. She testified that she was an EA in the Member’s classroom and described the Member’s interaction with students. She testified about several comments the Member would make to students and how these comments negatively affected the students. Colleague 3 further testified about her involvement with the Board’s investigation into the Member’s misconduct and the information she disclosed to the Investigator.

Principal’s Testimony

The Principal has been a Member in good standing with the College since February 1994. The Principal testified that she started teaching in 1991, was a vice-principal in both 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, and then became a principal in 2006. She stated that she was principal at the School between the years of 2008-2014 and is currently a principal at a different school.

Using her handwritten notes (Exhibit 7, tab 2), the Principal testified in detail about the number of complaints she received from parents regarding the Member’s inappropriate behaviour. She testified about a letter of discipline that she sent to the Member in 2012 (Exhibit 7, tab 3), which describes the incidents in which the Member grabbed the Male Student by the shoulders and shook him, and pushed Student 2 out the door because she was taking too long to get ready. The Principal also testified about reporting particular incidents to Family and Child Services (“F.C.S.”) in Guelph, and discussed the results of the F.C.S. investigation (Exhibit 7, tab 4). She testified further about her involvement in the Board’s investigation into the Member’s misconduct and the information she disclosed to the Investigator.

Investigator’s Testimony

The Investigator is the proprietor of Fletcher Consultancy, a company that conducts assessments and investigations. Throughout her consultancy career, the Investigator had conducted approximately 35 workplace investigations with the majority of those cases being within boards of education.

The Investigator testified about her interviews with the Principal and students’ parents pertaining to the various allegations involving the Member. These interviews formed the basis for her written report containing her factual findings regarding the allegations against the Member (Exhibit 9, tab 1). The Investigator also testified about the interview she conducted with the Member and the Member’s representative. She testified about the Member’s responses to the various allegations and prepared a written report containing the Member’s responses (Exhibit 9, tab 2).

SUBMISSIONS OF COLLEGE COUNSEL

College Counsel reviewed the relevant evidence in depth with the Committee and explained how the evidence presented amounted to professional misconduct under each head of misconduct alleged in the Notice of Hearing. College Counsel further submitted that the nine College witnesses were credible.

College Counsel submitted that the College was not proceeding with particular 11, as set out in the Notice of Hearing, but that the evidence presented to the Committee proves each of the remaining allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing, on a balance of probabilities.

With respect to the allegation that the Member breached subsection 1(5) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel submitted that it was not necessary to present expert evidence to prove that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession because it is self-evidently a breach of professional standards for a member to physically abuse students. College Counsel submitted further that the particulars alleged at paragraphs 6, 8, 9, 10 (a-c), 10 (f-k), 10 (m-o), 12, 13 and 14, also constitute conduct that clearly falls below the standards of the teaching profession.

DECISION ON FINDING

Onus and standard of proof

The College bears the burden of proving the allegations in accordance with the standard of proof set out in F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, which is proof on a balance of probabilities.

Decision

Having considered the evidence, onus and standard of proof, and the submissions of College Counsel, the Committee found the Member guilty of professional misconduct. In particular, the Committee found that the Member committed acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7); 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Committee has carefully reviewed the evidence and submissions presented in this matter. In the reasons that follow, the Committee comments only on the portions of the evidence that are most relevant to the allegations contained in the Notice of Hearing. The Committee first sets out its factual findings and then explains why these facts give rise to a finding of professional misconduct, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing.

For clarity, and to prevent repetition below, the Committee makes the following findings as it relates to the credibility of the Principal and the Investigator. The Committee recognizes that some of the evidence that it received was hearsay, particularly the evidence given by the Principal and the Investigator. Both the Principal and the Investigator testified about what was reported to them by students’ parents. Generally, the parents were reporting what their children or other parents said the Member had done.

Hearsay evidence is, however, admissible in discipline hearings at the College, and, unless otherwise stated, the Committee gives considerable weight to the hearsay evidence that it received from the Principal and the Investigator. The Principal provided credible and consistent accounts of her conversations with parents and the Member, and kept a record of contemporaneously documented notes of these conversations (Exhibit 7, tab 2). The Investigator is experienced and had previously conducted 35 workplace investigations, with the majority of those cases being within boards of education. During the course of her investigations, the Investigator conducted each interview separately at the Board offices. In each interview, the Investigator took extensive notes and was able to capture almost everything that was being said. The Investigator’s report (at Exhibit 9, tabs 1-2) is comprehensive and contains direct quotes in italics from the interviewees.

Additional credibility findings are set out, as needed, below.

Factual Findings

1) The Member made inappropriate physical contact when she took hold of Student 1’s arm and shook it because he interrupted the Member’s conversation

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member took hold of Student 1’s arm and shook it, as alleged at paragraph 4(a) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee heard the Investigator’s testimony regarding the investigation she conducted in relation to the allegation against the Member that she took hold of Student 1’s arm and shook him. The Investigator testified that she interviewed Student 1’s parent, the Principal, and Student 8’s Mother to gather information regarding the nature of the complaint (Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 1). The Investigator stated that Student 8’s Mother advised her of an incident that she witnessed between Student 1 and the Member during the 2010-2011 academic year. Student 8’s Mother told the Investigator that she was talking to the Member in the hallway when Student 1 interrupted them. Student 8’s Mother stated that the Member’s reaction to Student 1’s interruption was to “grab his arm and shake it” (Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 1).

Further, the Investigator testified that she interviewed the Member with her union representative present, regarding the allegation that the Member took hold of Student 1’s arm and shook him. The Investigator summarized her report regarding the Member’s response to this allegation (see Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 1). She testified that the Member admitted that she grabbed Student 1’s arm and shook it because he interrupted the Member’s conversation. The Investigator stated that the Member explained that this action was spontaneous, that there was no prior intention for it, and that it was uncharacteristic of her to touch a student. She testified that the Member told her that she understood it was unacceptable for her to grab Student 1’s arm and shake it.

The Committee finds that it is more likely than not that the Member grabbed Student 1’s arm and shook it. While the Committee recognizes that the Investigator’s oral testimony and written report (Exhibit 9, tab 1 and 2) regarding the eyewitness account of the Member grabbing Student 1 is hearsay, the Committee finds that the hearsay evidence in this regard is reliable. During her one-on-on interview, Student 8’s Mother reported to the Investigator that she witnessed the Member grab Student 1’s arm and shake it after Student 1 had interrupted their conversation (Exhibit 9, Tab 1, allegation 1). The eyewitness account of Student 8’s Mother was recorded verbatim by the Investigator (see Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 1). In any event, the eyewitness account is corroborated by the Member’s admission to the Investigator she in fact did grab and shake Student 1’s arm (see Exhibit 9, tab2, paragraph 1).

The Committee accepts Independent Legal Counsel’s advice that the Member’s admission against her own interest does not raise the same concerns about reliability that the hearsay evidence of third parties does, and instead is admissible pursuant to an exception to the rule against hearsay evidence. According to Independent Legal Counsel, an admission against one’s own interest is seen to be reliable because people naturally try to make themselves look better rather than worse. Therefore, when an individual admits to doing something bad or wrong, the admission is generally regarded as being reliable. The Committee accepts Independent Legal Counsel’s advice, and finds it more likely than not that during the 2010-2011 academic year, the Member took hold of Student 1’s arm and shook it because he interrupted the Member’s conversation, as alleged at paragraph 4(a) of the Notice of Hearing.

2) The Member pushed Student 2 out the door because she was taking too long getting ready for recess

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that on or about December 10, 2010, the Member pushed Student 2 out the door, as alleged at paragraph 4(b) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee heard the Investigator’s testimony that she interviewed the Principal, who relayed the information she obtained during her interview with Student 2, and Student 8’s Mother, who had witnessed the incident (see Exhibit 9, tab 1, and allegation 2). The Investigator testified that Student’s 8’s Mother reported to her during their interview that she witnessed the Member push Student 2 out of the doorway and that the “girl’s neck flipped back, whipped back and she took a few steps and stumbled but didn’t fall.” The Investigator testified that the Principal disclosed to her that Student 2 had reported to the Principal that “[the Member] pushed me outside because I was being slow.”

The Investigator’s testimony and report was corroborated by the Principal. The Principal testified about a letter she wrote to the Member regarding the December 10, 2010 incident with Student 2. The Principal wrote the following:

…Last year on December 10^th, 2010 you pushed a student out the door because she was taking too long in getting ready for recess. At this time I talked to you and indicated that if it were to happen again that a discipline letter would be put in your file.

You mentioned that your action was meant as a ‘joke’ and did not intend to offend or injure the child… (Exhibit 7, tab 3, paragraphs 3 and 4)

The Principal testified that the incident she was referring to in the above noted excerpt related to the Member pushing Student 2 out of the doorway. The Principal stated that when she confronted the Member about it around the time of the incident, the Member stated that Student 2 was not going fast enough and that it was meant as a joke.

The Committee finds that it is more likely than not that the Member pushed Student 2 out of the doorway. While the Committee recognizes that the Investigator’s oral testimony and written report (Exhibit 9, tab 1 and 2) are hearsay, her evidence is consistent with the oral testimony of the Principal, as well as the letter sent by the Principal to the Member (Exhibit 7, tab 3, paragraphs 3 and 4).

Moreover, the Committee finds that the Principal’s evidence was credible as she had a vivid recollection of the incident involving Student 2. The Principal interviewed Student 2 about this incident and followed up with the Member, warning her that such conduct could lead to a formal letter of discipline.

The Committee notes that the Member effectively denied this allegation when she told the Investigator that it was a “gentle guide” (see Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 2) but this version of events is inconsistent with her statement to the Principal that it was “meant as a joke”. The Committee accepts College Counsel’s submission that the Member’s denial should be afforded little weight since she chose not to participate in the hearing and be subject to cross-examination. Further, the Member’s denial or explanation at Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 2 is inconsistent with the oral testimony of the Principal, the Principal’s letter to the Member (Exhibit 7, tab 3), and the Investigator’s testimony and report (Exhibit 9, tab 1 and 2). On the preponderance of the evidence, the Committee finds that the allegation has been proven.

3) The Member took hold of Student 3 by the shoulders and shook him

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that during the 2011-2012 academic year, the Member took hold of Student 3’s shoulder and shook him, as alleged at paragraph 5(a) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee heard the Investigator’s testimony regarding the investigation she conducted in relation to this allegation against the Member. The Investigator testified that she interviewed Student 3’s Mother and the Principal about this incident (Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 10). The Investigator stated that in her interview, Student 3’s Mother stated that Student 3 came home and told her that the Member “grabbed him by the shoulders and shook him.” Student 3’s Mother told the Investigator that Student 3 was shocked, angry and scared, and that he was hurt and he cried.

Further, the Investigator testified that she interviewed the Member, with her union representative present, regarding this allegation (see Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 4). She testified that the Member admitted that she grabbed Student 3’s shoulders and shook him because another student “… did witness [Student 3]” being grabbed and shaken by the Member (see Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 4).

The Committee finds that it is more likely than not that the Member grabbed Student 3’s shoulders and shook him. While, the Committee recognizes that the Investigator’s oral testimony and written report (Exhibit 9, tab 1 and 2) regarding Student 3’s Mother’s account of this incident is hearsay, the Committee finds that the Member admitted to grabbing Student 3 by the shoulders and shaking him during the Member’s response to a separate allegation (see Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 4).

4) The Member put her hands on the Male Student’s shoulder and physically shook him yelling that he was supposed to be cleaning up

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that on or about February 8, 2012, the Member put her hands on the Male Student’s shoulder, physically shook him, and yelled “you’re supposed to be cleaning up” as alleged at paragraph 5(b) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee heard the oral testimony of the Principal relating to the above noted allegation. The Principal testified that she first heard about this incident when the Male Student’s Mother contacted her, after the Male Student told his mother that the Member put her hands on his shoulder, shook him, and yelled at him. The Principal testified that she set up a meeting with the Member, in the presence of her union representative, to discuss this incident that occurred on February 8, 2012. The Principal testified that she asked the Member if she put her hands on the Male student and that the Member admitted that she did, but explained that the Male Student does not respond well to verbal cues so she decided to use her hands. The Principal testified further that she asked the Member if she yelled at the Male Student, and that the Member stated that she used an “authoritative voice” and believed that “yelling” was subjective.

The Principal further testified about a letter of discipline she drafted and sent to the Member regarding this incident (see Exhibit 7, tab 3). In the letter, the Principal summarizes the events that took place during her meeting with the Member and notes that the Member admitted to putting her hands on the Male’s Student’s shoulder, shaking him, and yelling at him. The Principals quotes the following:

At this time you reported, “yes, I did put my hands on his shoulders and shook him because verbal reprimands may lead him to tears.”…When you reportedly yelled at him your response was, “sure, to me it was an authoritative voice telling him to clean up –yelling is subjective”.

The Committee also heard the Investigator’s testimony regarding the Member’s response to the allegation involving the Male Student (see Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 3). The Investigator testified that during her interview of the Member, the Member admitted this inappropriate conduct. According to the Investigator, the Member stated, “yes, I did do it, understand that not appropriate [sic]” and the Member said she “should not have touched him.” The Investigator went on to state that the Member explained to her that her actions were intended to be dramatic as the Male Student enjoyed drama (see Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 3).

The Committee further notes that both the Investigator and the Principal testified that this grabbing, shaking and yelling incident occurred between the Member and Student 3 (as opposed to the Male Student). College Counsel submitted that the grabbing and shaking incident, as alleged in paragraph 5(a) of the Notice of Hearing, occurred between the Member and Student 3; whereas, the grabbing, shaking and yelling incident, as alleged in paragraph 5(b) of the Notice of Hearing, occurred between the Member and the Male Student. The Committee finds that this inconsistency is reasonable since the allegations involving Student 3 and the Male Student (at paragraphs 5(a) and 5(b) of the Notice of Hearing), were very similar and occurred during the same academic year. The Committee therefore finds that it is understandable that the Principal and Investigator confused the names of the two students because the Principal and Investigator testified about two very similar incidents that had occurred almost six years prior to their giving testimony.

The confusion of the students’ names is minor and does not materially affect the credibility of the Principal’s and the Investigator’s evidence, which was admitted by the member. The Committee received direct oral evidence from the Principal regarding the details of the grabbing, shaking and yelling incident, and her testimony was externally consistent with the letter of discipline sent to the Member (Exhibit 7, tab 3).

The Member admitted that she put her hands on the Male Student’s shoulder, physically shook him, and yelled “you’re supposed to be cleaning up.” The Committee accepts Independent Legal Counsel’s advice that admissions against one’s own interest are generally viewed as admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay and as reliable evidence.

5) The Member allowed Student 3 to clean up glass with his fingers after he had broken a glass jar

The Committee finds that the allegation set out at paragraph 6 of the Notice of Hearing (namely, that during the 2012-2013 academic year the Member allowed Student 3 to clean up glass with his fingers after he had broken a glass jar) has not been proven on a balance of probabilities. The Committee finds that the evidence in this regard was insufficient to support a finding on a balance of probabilities.

The Committee notes that the Investigator testified that she interviewed Colleague 2 who told her (Exhibit 9, tab 1, page 35) that Colleague 2’s classroom was next to the Member’s classroom and their classrooms were divided by a partition. During the 2012-2013 academic year, Colleague 2 heard something break in the Member’s class and saw little fingers reaching under the partition in her class. When Colleague 2 went to the Member’s classroom to see what occurred, she saw Student 3 cleaning up glass with his fingers. However, Colleague 2 did not report to the Investigator that she saw the Member “allow” Student 3 cleaning up the glass (see Exhibit 9, tab 1, page 35). Further, the evidence from Colleague 2 (as relayed through the Investigator’s testimony and notes) does not demonstrate that the Member was anywhere near Student 3 during this incident. Therefore, the Committee finds that there is insufficient evidence (both in the Investigator’s notes and in Colleague 2’s oral testimony), to prove that the Member “allowed” Student 3 to clean up glass with his fingers, as alleged in paragraph 6 of the Notice of Hearing.

6) The Member pushed Student 4 into his desk, took him by the shoulders, and shook him

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that on or about January 10, 2013, the Member pushed Student 4 into his desk, took him by the shoulders, and shook him as alleged at paragraph 7 of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee heard direct oral testimony from Student 4 and the Mother of Student 4 and Student 11 regarding the above noted incident. Student 4 testified that the Member “grabbed me by my shoulders and shoved me”. He stated that the when he was working on an art project in the Member’s class, this is when the Member grabbed him by the shoulders and shook him.

The Committee also heard from the Mother of Student 4 and Student 11 regarding the allegation that the Member took Student 4 by the shoulders, pushed him into his desk, and shook him. She testified that in January 2013 a mother of another Student in Student 4’s class, called her to ask if Student 4 was okay following an incident that occurred between him and the Member during art class. The Mother of Student 4 and Student 11 testified that she and her husband asked Student 4 about what happened at School between him and the Member. She testified that Student 4 told her that after he had finished working on an art project in the Member’s class, he stood up out of his chair to put the artwork in the place where completed art was kept. The Member then grabbed him by the shoulders from behind, shoved him back into desk, and shook him by the shoulders.

The Committee finds that it is more likely than not that, on or about January 10, 2013, the Member pushed Student 4 back into his desk, took him by the shoulders, and shook him. The Committee finds that the oral testimonies of Student 4 and Student 4’s Mother are reliable. Although Student 4 could not remember the year that the above noted incident occurred, the Committee finds that this does not affect the reliability of his testimony as a whole. Student 4 was able to clearly articulate that during an art project the Member grabbed him by the shoulders and shook him.

The Committee further finds that the Mother of Student 4 and Student 11’s testimony is reliable. First, her testimony is externally consistent with Student 4’s, and was given in straightforward manner, absent any apparent animosity or grudge towards the Member. Moreover, the Mother of Student 4 and Student 11’s testimony was internally consistent with her statement given to the Principal (see Exhibit 7, tab 2) and her interview with the Investigator (see Exhibit 9, tab 1, pages 36-37).

The Committee notes that the Investigator’s record of her interview with Student 4’s Mother (at Exhibit 9, tab, pages 36-37), regarding the above noted incident, contains more detail than the oral evidence of the Mother of Student 4 and Student 11. However, the Committee finds that the substance of the Mother of Student 4 and Student 11’s testimony, namely that the Member grabbed Student 4 by the shoulders, pushed him into the desk, and shook him, remains consistent.

The Investigator testified that she met with Student 4’s mother and father, and that Student 4 had told them that the “[Member] was angry that my art wasn’t good enough and she pushed me into my desk and shook me by my shoulders.” The Committee recognizes that the Investigator’s oral testimony and written report (Exhibit 9, tab 1) regarding this incident is hearsay but finds that it supports the testimony given on the stand by Student 4’s mother who has consistently told the same version of events over time..

The Committee recognizes that the Member denied this allegation during her interview with the Investigator (see Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 4). However, the Committee accepts College Counsel’s submission that the Member’s denial should be afforded little weight since she chose not to participate in the hearing and therefore her denial is not subject to cross-examination.

7) The Member did not allow Student 5 to get ice after she had fallen and hit her head

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that in or about October 2012, the Member did not allow Student 5 to go to the office to get ice after she had fallen and hit her head, as alleged at paragraph 8 of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee heard testimony from the Principal regarding this incident. Using her notes (at Exhibit 7, tab 2) that were created at the time of the incident, the Principal testified that on October 10, 2012, Student 5’s father called her to report that his daughter came home from school the previous day with a significant bump on her head. Student 5’s father told the Principal that another student in the class pulled her off her chair and that when she fell she bumped her head. Student 5’s father said that another student asked the Member to take Student 5 to the office to get ice, but the Member replied that Student 5 was fine and would not allow her to get ice.

The Principal testified that she spoke to the Member about her phone call with Student 5’s father. She stated that the Member’s response was, “I didn’t know, I’m sorry, I just didn’t think it was a big deal” (Exhibit 7, tab 2).

The Committee also received evidence from the Investigator about this incident. The Investigator testified that when she interviewed the Member, the Member admitted that Student 5 had fallen and hit her head and that another student asked her to take Student 5 to the office to get ice. The Investigator testified that the Member told her that she went over to comfort Student 5, and did not see any bump on her head and determined that it was not a major injury (see the Investigator’s report at Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 6). The Investigator testified that the Member said that the bump on the head incident occurred at the end of the day, and that the Member thought that if Student 5 needed ice, she could get some at home.

The Committee finds that it is more likely than not that the Member did not allow Student 5 to get ice from the office after she had fallen and hit her head. While her explanation to each of the Principal and Investigator was slightly different, the Member did not suggest that she was unaware that Student 5 had bumped her head. The Member also did not suggest that she in fact did tell Student 5 to go get ice. The Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the version of events told to the Principal by Student 5’s father was an accurate explanation of what happened and that the Member’s response of “I just didn’t think it was that big a deal” essentially corroborates the fact that she did not allow Student 5 to go get ice.

8) The Member did not intervene when there were problems with students in the classroom

The Committee finds that the allegation set out at paragraph 9 of the Notice of Hearing has not been proven on a balance of probabilities. The Committee finds that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that, while on lunch duty, the Member did not intervene when there were problems with students in the classroom.

The Committee notes that the Investigator testified about her interview with Colleague 3, an educational assistant at the School, who witnessed the Member refusing to intervene on lunch duty when there were problems. She testified that Colleague 3 reported, “complete mayhem in the classroom with students throwing food.” (see Exhibit 9, tab 1, page 36).

However, the Committee finds that there is insufficient reliable evidence to prove the above noted allegation on a balance of probabilities. Colleague 3 testified during the hearing, but was silent on the specific issue of the Member refusing to intervene when there were problems with students in the classroom during her lunch duty. While Colleague 3 testified generally about the Member’s conduct, she did not testify specifically about this allegation as the Committee would have expected. Therefore, the Committee finds that the allegation set out at paragraph 9 of the Notice of Hearing, has not been proven on a balance of probabilities.

9) The Member took Student 6’s book and slammed it down in front him and said “if you can’t do this work, then I am going to lower you to a different level”

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that in 2008, the Member took Student 6’s book, slammed it down in front of him, and said “if you can’t do this work, then I am going to lower you to a different level”, as alleged at paragraph 10(a) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee received evidence from the Investigator who testified that she interviewed Student 6’s mother in relation to the above noted incident. Using her notes at Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 11, the Investigator stated that Student 6’s mother volunteered in the Member’s classroom and witnessed the Member take Student 6’s book, slam it down in front of him, and say “if you can’t do this work, then I am going to lower you to a different level.”

The Investigator’s evidence is externally consistent with the Principal’s notes at Exhibit 7, tab 2. The Principal testified that Student 6’s mother called her on January 17, 2013, to report a separate incident. The Principal’s notes reflect that Student 6’s mother reported an incident from 2013, as well an older incident. The Principal’s notes stated that Student 6’s mother reported that Student 6 was “still dealing with repercussions from grade [XXX]” where the Members “slammed his book and yelled” (see Exhibit 7, tab 2). The Committee notes that the Principal testified that she was not the principal at the School in 2008, when the incident between Student 6 and the Member took place, and was therefore unable to testify in detail about this incident. However, the Committee finds that the Principal’s notes are reliable, because the Principal testified that she took these notes at the time that Student 6’s mother had called her and that they reflected her best efforts to maintain an accurate record of what was reported to her by Student 6’s mother.

The Committee recognizes that Student 6’s mother witnessed the incident between Student 6 and the Member in 2008, but only reported this incident to the Principal in January of 2013 (Exhibit 7, tab 2). The Committee accepts College Counsel’s submission that although this allegation was made in 2013, approximately 5 years after the incident in question, the late disclosure is reasonable because parents might have been afraid to report the Member for fear of how this would impact their children in the Member’s classroom. Therefore, the Committee finds that Student 6’s mother’s eyewitness account of the incident, as reflected in the Investigator’s report (Exhibit 9, tab 1) and the Principal’s notes (Exhibit 7, tab 2), is reliable.

The Committee notes that the Member denied this allegation during her interview with the Investigator (see Exhibit 9, tab2, paragraph 16). However, the Committee accepts College Counsel’s submission that the Member’s denial should be afforded little weight since she chose not to participate in the hearing and therefore her denial is not subject to cross-examination.

10) The Member pulled out students’ lunches and told the class that the food was unhealthy

The Committee finds that the allegation set out at paragraph 10(b) of the Notice of Hearing has not been proven on a balance of probabilities. The Committee finds that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding that, in 2009, the Member pulled out students’ lunches and told the class they were unhealthy.

The Committee recognizes that the Investigator testified about this incident. Using her notes drafted during the interview with Student 6’s mother (Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 11), the Investigator testified that the Member would open students’ lunch boxes and criticize their lunches in front of the class.

The Committee, however, received contradictory evidence to that of the Investigator and therefore finds that the Investigator’s evidence about this incident was not sufficiently reliable to prove this allegation on a balance of probabilities. In particular, the Committee received an affidavit from Student 10’s Mother in which she states that “[Student 10] advises me that the Member made a point of displaying healthy lunches to the entire class…” [emphasis added] (Exhibit 10, paragraph 5). Given the significant inconsistency between Student 10’s Mother’s account and that of Student 6’s Mother (which was reported to the Investigator), the Committee does not accept the Investigator’s hearsay evidence relating to this incident. The College did not present sufficiently reliable evidence to prove that the Member pulled out students’ lunches and commented that were unhealthy, as alleged at paragraph 10(b) of the Notice of Hearing.

11) The Member told Student 7 that his Mother would not like his artwork

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that during the 2011-2012 academic year, the Member told Student 7 that his mother would not like his artwork because the sun was too big, as alleged at paragraph 10(c) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee heard testimony from the Investigator who had interviewed Student 7’s mother. The Investigator stated that Student 7’s mother advised her that the Member had taken the sun off Student 7’s artwork and said to him “your mom won’t like that, the sun is too big” (see Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 6). The Investigator testified that during her Interview with the Member, the Member admitted to taking the sun off of Student 7’s artwork and telling him “your mom won’t like that, the sun is too big”. Specifically, in her response to the Investigator’s question regarding this incident, the Member stated, “Yes, I do [recall the incident] and I realize that probably wasn’t the best approach” (Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 9).

The Committee accepts the Member’s admission of the allegation set out at paragraph 10(c) of the Notice of Hearing. The Committee accepts Independent Legal Counsel’s advice that an admission against one’s own interest is generally admissible and reliable evidence.

12) The Member told Student 8 that his train station could not be included in the class pioneer village

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that in the 2011-2012 academic year, after the Member approved his project, she told Student 8 that his train station could not be included in the class pioneer village, as alleged at paragraph 10(d) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee heard testimony from the Principal regarding the above noted allegation. The Principal testified that on June 19, 2012, Student 8’s mother called her to complain about this. She stated that Student 8’s mother was upset and had approached the Member about the situation, but that the Member told her that the train did not fit within the proper time era for the pioneer village. The Principal testified that she spoke to the Member about the call she received from Student 8’s mother. The Principal stated that the Member said that Student 8’s mother must have misunderstood, and that she said the train was too big to fit within the pioneer village. The Member told the Principal that she did not mean to make Student 8 upset and that she would talk to Student 8 and his mother. The Principal testified that the Member did speak to Student 8 the next day, but did not follow up with Student 8’s mother. The Principal’s testimony in this regard was consistent with her handwritten notes at Exhibit 7.

The Committee also heard testimony from the Investigator who had interviewed Student 8’s mother regarding this incident. The Investigator testified that in her interview with Student 8’s mother, Student 8’s mother explained that the Member gave Student 8 permission to make a train for the class pioneer village. Student 8’s mother told the Investigator that Student 8 had spent a lot of time working on the train, and when he presented it to the Member the Member said it could not be included in the class pioneer village because the train did not fit within the proper era. The Investigator testified that Student 8’s mother told her that Student 8 was very upset about the incident. The Investigator’s testimony in this regard was consistent with her report at Exhibit 9, tab 1.

Further, the Committee received oral evidence from Colleague 2 about interactions between the Member and various students. She testified that Student 8 was upset because, after the Member told him that he could make a train for the class pioneer village, the Member did not allow his train to be included. Colleague 2 testified that after the Member gave Student 8 permission, it was discovered that the train did not fit within the parameters of the pioneer village. Colleague 2 stated that she heard about the incident between Student 8 and the Member from Student 8’s mother, and testified that Student 8’s mother told her that Student 8 was disappointed about the situation because he had put a lot of effort into making the train.

The Committee finds it more likely than not that the Member told Student 8 that his train station could not be included in the class pioneer village. The Committee recognizes that the evidence given by the Principal, the Investigator, and Colleague 2 are hearsay. However, the Committee finds that this hearsay evidence is reliable and the Member admits that she did not allow the student to include his train station, although she cites a different reason for doing so (wrong size as opposed to wrong era)..

The Committee finds further that the Investigator’s oral testimony and written report at Exhibit 9, tab 1 (regarding her interview with Student 8’s mother) was consistent with that of the Principal and Colleague 2, and was based on her interview with Student 8’s mother (Exhibit 9, tab 1, page 30).

Finally, the Committee finds that Colleague 2’s oral testimony is reliable hearsay. Colleague 2 testified in a clear and concise manner, and did not overstate her evidence. When testifying, Colleague 2 could clearly recall the conversation she had with Student 8’s mother regarding the train incident. Colleague 2 also knew the limits of her evidence, as she testified that she was unsure if the Member ended up including Student 8’s train station in the pioneer village or not. The Member did not testify and so the evidence of the numerous witnesses, while hearsay, was unchallenged.

13) The Member allowed another student to complete Student 9’s artwork while Student 9 was on vacation, and then held the artwork up in front of the class and told the class what Student 9 could do to make his artwork better

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that in the 2011-2012 academic year, the Member allowed another student to complete Student 9’s artwork and then held up the artwork in front of the class and told the class what Student 9 could do to make his artwork better, as alleged paragraph 10(e) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee received evidence from the Principal and the Investigator. The Principal testified that on June 22, 2012, she received a call from Student 9’s mother, who explained that the Member belittled students in class, treated them unkindly, and criticized their artwork in front of the class. The Principal testified that Student 9’s mother told her that the Member allowed another student to finish Student 9’s artwork while he was on vacation, and then sent that artwork home with Student 9. The principal’s testimony was consistent with her handwritten notes at Exhibit 7, tab 2.

The Committee also received evidence from the Investigator who testified about her interview with Student 9’s mother. The Investigator stated that Student 9’s mother told her that the Member allowed another student to complete Student 9’s artwork while he was on vacation, and then held up that artwork in front of the class and told Student 9 what he could do to make his artwork better. In her written report at Exhibit 9, tab 2, page 20, the Investigator summarizes the Member’s response to this allegation. During her interview with the Investigator, the Member admitted that she allowed another student to complete Student 9’s artwork while he was on vacation.

The Committee recognizes that both the Principal’s and Investigator’s evidence (as described above) is hearsay, but finds that this hearsay evidence is reliable and is in fact admitted by the Member in her statement to the Investigator. (Exhibit 9, tab 1, page 20). The Committee accepts the advice of Independent Legal Counsel that admissions against one’s own interest are generally admissible and reliable.

14) The Member told Student 10 that she was not “smart” and insulted her work by saying “that’s bad”

The Committee finds, that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that, during the 2012-2013 academic year, the Member told Student 10 that she was not “smart” and insulted her work by saying “that’s bad”, as alleged at paragraph 10(f) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee recognizes that the Investigator testified about interviewing Student 10’s Mother regarding the above noted incident. Using her report at Exhibit 9, tab 2, the Investigator testified that Student 10’s Mother said that the Member told Student 10 she was not smart and insulted her work saying “[Student 10], that’s bad.”

Further, the College submitted the affidavit of Student 10’s Mother (Exhibit 10) to prove the above noted allegation. Paragraph 7 of the affidavit stated the following:

[Student 10] advises me that on at least one occasion, the Member said [Student 10’s] artwork was “terrible” and ripped it up in front of the entire class. [Student 10] advises me that Member’s conduct caused her to feel very upset and she did not want to attend the Member’s class.

However, the Committee finds that there is insufficient reliable evidence to prove the allegation at paragraph 10(f) of the Notice of Hearing on a balance of probabilities. First, the evidence the College proffered was hearsay evidence and contained inconsistencies. The affidavit evidence from Student 10’s Mother (Exhibit 10) stated that the Member told Student 10 that her artwork was “terrible” whereas Student 10’s Mother told the Investigator (at Exhibit 9, tab 2, allegation 9), that the Member insulted Student 10’s work saying “that’s bad”. Further, the evidence was silent on whether or not the Member told Student 10 that she was not “smart”.

The Committee notes that it is College Counsel’s position that the exact wording of the particular, as alleged at paragraph 10(f) of the Notice of Hearing, does not need to be proven verbatim. College Counsel submitted that the particulars alleged in the College’s Notice of Hearing are not to be held to the same standard as a criminal indictment or information. The Committee accepts College Counsel’s position in this regard, but does not accept College Counsel’s position that the evidence is sufficient to draw an inference that the Member made a comment to Student 10 about her intelligence. The Committee finds that without further evidence, the hearsay evidence submitted by the College is not sufficiently reliable to infer that the Member was commenting on Student 10’s intelligence.

15) The Member told Student 10 that her work was not as good as her sister’s work

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that in or about November 2012, the Member told Student 10 that her work was not as good as her sister’s work, as alleged at paragraph 10(g) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee received affidavit evidence from Student 10’s mother (Exhibit 10) relating to the above noted incident. Student 10’s mother stated that Student 10 told her that the Member “would ask [Student 10] why she was not more like her sister” (Exhibit 10, paragraph 8). The Committee heard consistent testimony from the Investigator, who stated that she met with Student 10’s mother regarding this incident. Student 10’s mother reported to the Investigator that her daughter (Student 10) told her that the Member compared her work to her sister’s work and said that Student 10’s work was not as good as her sister’s (see Exhibit 9, tab 1, page 32).

The Committee finds that it is more likely than not that the Member compared Student 10’s work to her sister’s work and said that Student 10’s work was not as good as her sister’s. While the Committee recognizes that the Investigator’s oral testimony and written report (Exhibit 9, tab 1) are hearsay, the Committee notes that hearsay evidence is admissible in discipline hearings and that the Investigator’s hearsay evidence, in this regard, is reliable because it is both internally and externally consistent. The Investigator did not over state her evidence during her oral testimony, and testified using the words captured during the interview with Student 10’s mother. Further, the Investigator’s hearsay evidence is externally consistent with the affidavit of Student 10’s mother at Exhibit 10. The Committee recognizes that the affidavit of Student 10’s mother is also hearsay, but nonetheless finds it to be reliable. The Committee finds that both the specificity of the allegation and the fact that it is, all things considered, relatively mild behaviour, makes it more likely than not that it occurred as described. The Panel believes that if a child was going to make something up about a teacher to get them into trouble, it is more likely that they would make up something worse than the teacher comparing a student to a sibling.

The Committee notes that the Member denied this allegation. The Investigator testified that the Member said she was “shocked” and was “really surprised that the child has this perception” (see Exhibit 9, tab 2, page 18). However, the Committee accepts College Counsel’s submission that the Member’s denial should be afforded little weight since she chose not to participate in the hearing and therefore her denial is not subject to cross-examination.

16) After getting upset, the Member told the Male Student “baby do I need to change your diaper?”

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that in or about November 2012, the Member got upset with the Male Student and told him “baby do I need to change your diaper”, as alleged at paragraph 10(h) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee heard direct oral evidence from the Male Student who testified that the Member told him “[he] should be wearing diapers.” The Committee finds that the Male Student’s evidence was reliable because he was able to clearly recall the above noted incident. He testified that the Member’s comment upset him and made him feel embarrassed because “no kid really wants to get [that] comment in grade [XXX], especially when you are just finished with diapers.”

Further, the Committee heard evidence from the Principal who testified that on November 21, 2012, she received a phone call from the Male Student’s Mother reporting that the Member said to her son “baby do I need to change your diaper?” The Principal documented the phone call with the Male Student’s Mother, (at Exhibit 7, tab 2). Although it is hearsay, the Principal’s oral and written evidence is consistent with the Male Student’s direct evidence, it does show that the Male Student has consistently told the same version of events and the Committee finds it to be reliable. The Principal took notes of her conversation with Male Student’s Mother shortly after the incident and her notes are consistent with the evidence of Male Student.

Moreover, the Committee heard consistent testimony from the Investigator who had interviewed the Male Student’s Mother. Using her written report (Exhibit 9, tab 1, page 31), the Investigator testified that the Male Student’s Mother reported that the Member said to her son “baby, do I need to change your diaper?” The Committee notes that the Investigator’s evidence is hearsay, but finds her evidence to be reliable. Her report consists of the contemporaneous notes she took during her interview with the Male Student’s Mother and contain direct quotations.

The Committee notes that the Male Student’s Mother’s testimony was partially inconsistent with the testimonies of the Male Student, the Principal, and the Investigator. The Male Student’s Mother testified that her son disclosed to her that the Member made a comment to him “about being a little baby.” The Committee recognizes that her testimony was also not completely consistent with the words she reported to the Principal and the Investigator. However, the Committee does not find this minor inconsistency to be detrimental. The Committee finds that the substance of the Male Student’s Mother’s Testimony was consistent with what she disclosed to the Investigator and Principal. The Committee further finds that she presented as a reliable witness because did not overstate her evidence. She acknowledged the limits of her evidence when she admitted that she did not know the circumstances surrounding the Member’s comment to the Male Student.

17) The Member ripped a paper away from a student when he got paint on his arm, and said “forget it, you’re not doing it. You can sit there and do nothing.”

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that in or about November 2012, after the student got paint on his arm, the Member ripped the paper away from him and said “forget it, you’re not doing it. You can sit there and do nothing,” as alleged at paragraph 10(i) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee heard evidence from the Principal who testified that the Male Student’s Mother called her on November 21, 2012 to report inappropriate conduct on the part of the Member. She testified that the Male Student’s Mother reported that a student in her son’s class got paint on his arm so the Member ripped his paper away and said “forget it, you’re not doing it. You can sit there and do nothing.” The Principal’s testimony was consistent with the notes she took of her conversation with the Male Student’s Mother (Exhibit 7, tab 2).

The Committee received the same evidence from the Investigator regarding her interview with the Male Student’s Mother about this incident (Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 8).

The Committee also heard oral evidence from the Male Student who testified that he witnessed the Member say to a student “go to a corner and do nothing.” This was consistent with the testimony of the Male Student’s Mother’s, who stated that the Member told a student to “sit in a corner and do nothing.” Although this evidence does not contain the identical language to that used by the Principal and the Investigator, the Committee finds that evidence of the Male Student and his mother was substantially the same as the evidence of the Principal and the Investigator. Although the Principal and the Investigator’s evidence was hearsay, the Committee finds that it is reliable because of its consistency with the evidence of the Male Student and his mother, and because their evidence was well-supported by their contemporaneous notes or reports (Exhibit 7, tab 2 and Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 8).

Further, the Investigator testified that the Member stated that her actions were a “logical consequence, that if they continue to paint on what they were painting in or on and not the paper, they could choose not to do the activity.” The Committee accepts College Counsel’s position that the Member’s response is not a denial and finds that this is an admission on the Member’s part. The Committee accepts Independent Legal Counsel’s advice that the Member’s admission against her own interest is admissible and reliable evidence.

18) The Member told Student 4 to go home and put his arms around anyone in his household who smokes and say, “I don’t want you to die”

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that in or about November 2012, the Member told Student 4 to go home and put his arms around anyone in his household who smokes and say, “I don’t want you to die”, as alleged at paragraph 10(j) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee recognizes that Student 4’s Mother testified about this allegation. She testified that Student 4 came home upset after the Member had “been talking to the kids about smoking and the hazards of smoking.” Student 4’s Mother testified that the Member told the students that “if somebody you love smokes, go right home and tell them you don’t them to die.” She stated that Student 4 was “worried that his good friend’s parents are dying because they both are smokers.”

Although hearsay is permissible in discipline hearings, the Committee finds that Student 4’s Mother’s hearsay evidence is insufficient to prove this allegation because Student 4 had the opportunity to address this allegation, but he was silent on this issue during his oral testimony. Further, the Committee finds that there was no other reliable evidence (oral or documentary) to prove this allegation.

19) The Member told Student 4 to remove pink pants from the Nutcracker he was making and told the male students that if they wore pink pants they would grow up to be homosexual men

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that in or about December 2012, the Member told Student 4 to remove pink pants from the Nutcracker he was making and replace them with red or blue pants, and then told the male students that if they wore pink they would grow up to be homosexual men and that only homosexuals wore pink, as alleged at paragraph 10(k) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee heard direct evidence from Student 4 regarding this incident. Student 4 testified that he and a friend were working on a Nutcracker project and they put pink pants on their Nutcrackers. He stated that the Member “told us we couldn’t use those, we were going to grow up and be homosexual men.” The Committee finds Student 4’s testimony to be reliable. He was able to clearly recall this incident and he did not overstate his evidence.

The Committee also heard evidence from Student 4’s Mother that supported the evidence of Student 4. She testified that her son told her about an incident that happened in December 2012 when the students in the Member’s class were working on a Nutcracker art project. She stated that Student 4 said he had initially put pink pants on his Nutcracker, but that the Member told him to remove them “because boys don’t wear pink.” Student 4’s Mother testified that her son told her that the Member “told them that they might grow up to be gay men if they wear pink.” The Committee recognizes that Student 4’s Mother’s testimony is hearsay, but finds that this hearsay evidence is reliable because it is consistent with the direct testimony of Student 4. Further, Student 4’s Mother was able to clearly recall this incident between Student 4 and the Member with specific detail. She testified that, at the time, Student 4 did not know what “gay” meant, but that he was able to infer from the Member’s “reaction and behaviour that it was something that the [Member] felt wasn’t good, so then [Student 4] thought it wasn’t good.”

Finally, the Committee heard evidence from the Principal regarding this incident, which was consistent with the evidence of Student 4 and his mother. The Principal testified that she received a phone call from Student 4’s Mother on March 26, 2013 about this incident. The Principal’s evidence was supported by contemporaneously drafted notes of the phone call between her and Student 4’s Mother (Exhibit 7, tab 2). Her notes show that Student 4’s mother has consistently told the same version of events.

The Committee notes that the Member denied this allegation when she told the Investigator that she “doesn’t engage in homophobic slurs” and that she “wouldn’t say anything like that” (see Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 14). However, the Committee accepts College Counsel’s submission that the Member’s denial should be afforded little weight since she chose not to participate in the hearing and therefore her denial is not subject to cross-examination.

20) The Member had Student 11 stand in front of the class at snack time and told the class that she would be the smartest because she had the most nutritious snacks

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that Member had Student 11 stand in front of the class at snack time and told the class that she would be the smartest because she had the most nutritious snacks, as alleged at paragraph 10(l) of the Notice of Hearing. However, the Committee does not find that the Member’s conduct in this regard amounts to professional misconduct.

The Committee received evidence from Student 11’s Mother (who is also Student 4’s mother), about the Member singling her daughter out in front of the class at snack time. She stated that the Member “had her show everyone her hard boiled egg and praised her … and told the rest of the class that [Student 11] would be the smartest kid for the rest of the day.” The Committee finds that Student 11’s Mother’s hearsay evidence is reliable. Student 11’s Mother was able to clearly recall the events surrounding this incident. She explained that she was sitting down for dinner with her daughter when her daughter voluntarily said to her “do you want to know why I never took hard boiled eggs to school every again?” She explained that her daughter was shy and that “she was not happy about being centered out and put on the spot like that.” Student 11’s Mother’s testimony was also consistent with what she disclosed to the Investigator during her interview (see Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 37).

The Committee finds it more likely than not that the Member had Student 11 stand in front of the class at snack time, and told the class that she would be the smartest because she had the most nutritious snacks. However, the Committee does not believe that doing this would constitute professional misconduct. The Panel agrees with the Member’s comment to the Investigator (see Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 11(b)), that this was “a good opportunity to try and apply knowledge to the real world”. The Committee believes that the Member should have been more sensitive to how singling a student out (even for something the Member herself thought was good) but does not find that the conduct alleged at paragraph 10(l) of the Notice of Hearing amounts to professional misconduct.

21) The Member made students re-do their artwork if it was not completed according to the Member’s specifications

The Committee does not find that the burden of proof was met regarding the allegation that the Member made students re-do their artwork if it was not completed to the Member’s specifications, or told the students in a negative tone “oh no, that’s not right, you need to do that again”, as alleged at paragraph 10(m) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee heard evidence from the Investigator who had interviewed Colleague 4, an educational assistant in the Member’s class (see Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 19). The Investigator testified that Colleague 4 reported that the Member had high expectations of the students’ artwork. The Investigator stated that, according to Colleague 4, the Member expected the students to complete their work according to specifications and would ask them to do it over again if it did not meet the stated specifications. Colleague 4 also told the Investigator that the Member would make comments like “oh, no, that’s not right. You need to do that again.” In the Investigator’s report of her interview with the Member (see Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 18), the Member denied this allegation and noted that Colleague 4 was rarely in her class. The Member explained to the Investigator that while expectations were high, her feedback was given in a “kind and caring way” and she could not recall asking children to re-do their work. The Member also stated that she would modify the activity if a student was not able to do it.

The Committee finds that the Investigator’s hearsay evidence is insufficient to prove this allegation on a balance of probabilities. The Committee finds that the allegation was very general in nature and not specific to a particular incident, date or student. The Committee accepts College Counsel’s submission that the evidence in support of this allegation is tenuous. Therefore, the Committee finds that the allegation at paragraph 10(m) of the Notice of Hearing has not been proven on a balance of probabilities.

22) The Member yelled at students when they would forget instructions

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member yelled at students when they would forget instructions and would say things such as, “can’t you listen?”, “can’t you follow instructions?”, and “did I say to do that?”, as alleged at paragraph 10(n) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee heard direct evidence from Colleague 3 about the interactions she witnessed between the Member and her students. Colleague 3 testified that, during the 2012-2013 academic year, she was the EA for two students with developmental disabilities. Colleague 3 explained that the Member taught her students a few subjects, such as social studies, science, drama and art, and therefore witnessed the Member’s interactions with students during those classes. When asked by College Counsel to describe the Member’s interactions with the students in her class, Colleague 3 testified that the Member: was often in a “frantic state” when she entered the classroom; would yell at the students “quite a bit”; and, “would be cross with [the students], in particular, if they couldn’t follow her instructions.” Colleague 3 testified that the students she worked with as an EA had a hard time following instructions due to their developmental disabilities. She explained that when these students would tell the Member that they did not remember what to do, the Member “would often say, well, weren’t you listening…I just told you what to do, why can’t you follow my instructions?”

Further, Colleague 3 testified that the Member would make comments like the ones noted above to other students in the class as well. She stated that one student in particular would “draw back and look uncomfortable” when the Member would yell at him. Colleague 3 testified that the Member’s students often complained that they had stomach aches, headaches, or would want to go up to the office to call home during the Member’s class.

The Committee finds that Colleague 3’s evidence was reliable. Her testimony was clear and she was able to clearly recall the incidents she witnessed as an EA in the Member’s classroom. Colleague 3’s testimony was concise and not overstated or exaggerated. Her oral testimony was also consistent with the statement she gave to the Investigator (Exhibit 9, tab 2, allegation 24). The Committee recognizes that in her interview with the Investigator, Colleague 3 gave a more detailed account of the Member’s interactions with the students. For example, Colleague 3 told the Investigator that the Member would say to the students “can’t you listen, can’t you follow instructions, did I say to do that?” (See Exhibit 9, tab 2, allegation 24). In her testimony, Colleague 3 did not use these exact words. However, the Committee finds that the inconsistencies between Colleague 3’s testimony and her statement are minor, and not detrimental to the overall reliability of her evidence. The Committee also finds that it is reasonable that Colleague 3’s statement to the Investigator is more detailed because she was interviewed shortly after witnessing the Member’s interactions with her students, whereas, when Colleague 3 testified about what she witnessed, it had been almost five years since she was an EA in the Member’s class.

23) The Member yelled at students during dance if they could not follow different movement patterns

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Member yelled at students during dance if they could not follow the different movement patterns, as alleged at paragraph 10(o) of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee heard evidence from the Investigator who testified about her interview with Colleague 3 about this allegation. The Investigator stated that Colleague 3 reported that the Member would yell at students during dance if they could not follow the instructions regarding the movement patterns (Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 25). The Committee notes that the Investigator’s evidence is hearsay but finds this hearsay evidence to be reliable because Colleague 3 was present in the classroom during this incident and reported what she saw to the Investigator shortly after she witnessed it. The Investigator was clear in her testimony and she did not overstate her evidence.

The Committee recognizes that while Colleague 3 reported this incident to the Investigator (Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 25), Colleague 3 did not specifically testify that the Member would yell at the students in dance class if they could not follow the instructions regarding the movement pattern. Instead, Colleague 3 testified that the Member taught her students various subject, including dance, and that the Member would yell if the students could not follow instructions. However, the Committee finds that the inconsistencies between Colleague 3’s testimony and her statement are minor, and not detrimental to the overall reliability of the Investigator’s hearsay evidence. The Committee finds that it is reasonable that Colleague 3’s statement to the Investigator is more specific because she was interviewed shortly after witnessing the Member’s interactions with her students. Whereas, when Colleague 3 testified about what she had witnessed, it had been almost five years since she was an EA in the Member’s class.

The Committee further recognizes that the Member characterized her actions as “raising her voice above the sound of the music”. In the circumstances, the Committee finds that it is more likely than not that the Member was actually yelling rather than simply raising her voice above the sound of the music. Colleague 3 does not have the same interest in the outcome of the hearing as does the Member and where their evidence contradicts each other, the Committee prefers the evidence of Colleague 3. The Committee accepts College Counsel’s submission that the Member’s denial should be afforded little weight since she chose not to participate in the hearing and therefore her denial was not subject to cross-examination.

24) The Member threw Student 12’s eye glasses across the classroom

During closing submissions, College Counsel stated that they are not seeking finding with respect to particular 11, as alleged in the Notice of Hearing. No evidence was presented with respect to this allegation and the Committee therefore does not find that the College has proven this allegation.

25) The Member ripped Student 13’s artwork in front of the class

The Committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, that during the 2012-2013 academic year, the Member ripped Student 13’s artwork in front of the class, as alleged at paragraph 12 of the Notice of Hearing.

The Committee heard evidence from the Investigator who interviewed Student 13’s Mother regarding the above noted incident who made contemporaneous notes from that interview (see Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 12). The Investigator stated that Student 13’s Mother reported to her that, during the 2012-2013 academic year, her son came home crying because the Member had ripped up his artwork. Student 13’s Mother told the Investigator that, because of this incident, Student 13 started wetting the bed on the nights before he would have the Member as a teacher.

Further, the Investigator testified about interviewing the Member regarding this incident. The Investigator stated that the Member admitted that, “I recall once or twice doing it. I am embarrassed, it was an impulsive act.” The Investigator’s testimony was consistent with her report that contained the contemporaneous notes from her interview with the Member (see Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 17).

Given the consistent and uncontradicted evidence regarding this allegation, and the Member’s admission to the Investigator, the Committee finds that it is more likely than not that the Member ripped Student 13’s artwork in front of the class, as alleged.

26) The Member showed students a video where children were being removed from their parents and sent to concentration camps

The Committee finds that there was insufficient reliable evidence to conclude on a balance of probabilities that in or about November 2012, the Member showed students a video where children were being removed from their parents and sent to concentration camps and told the students that Hitler took the children because their parents were not the right people, as alleged at paragraph 13 of the Notice of Hearing.

Student 4’s Mother testified that Student 4 had told her that the Member had shown the students a World War II movie depicting children being separated from their parents and being taken to concentration camps. While Student 4’s Mother’s testimony was consistent with what she reported to the Investigator (see Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 35), Student 4 was silent on this issue in his oral testimony. Further, the Member denied the above noted allegation during her interview with the Investigator (see Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 21).

The Committee therefore received two different versions of events regarding this incident. ). Student 4 testified and could have provided her direct account of this incident, but she did not. The Committee therefore does not find that the College presented sufficient reliable evidence in order to prove this allegation on a balance of probabilities. While Student 4’s Mother may have testified honestly as to what information she received from her child, the Committee does not find that the evidence was sufficiently reliable, given that Student 4 had an opportunity to address the issue but remained silent.

27) The Member showed students videos of heart operations

The Committee finds that there was insufficient reliable evidence to conclude on a balance of probabilities that in or about November 2012, the Member showed students videos of heart operations as a means of telling them to eat healthily, as alleged at paragraph 14 of the Notice of Hearing.

Student 4’s Mother testified that Student 4 had told her that the Member had shown the students a movie about “some type of surgery [being] performed.” However, Student 4 was silent on this issue in his oral testimony. Further, Student 4’s Mother’s testimony (i.e., that Student 4 had given her this information) was inconsistent with what she reported to the Investigator, which was that “other parents had told them that [the Member] showed their children videos of heart operations as a means to tell them to eat healthy” (emphasis added) (Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 36). The Member denied this allegation during her interview with the Investigator (see Exhibit 9, tab 2, paragraph 11(a)).

The Committee finds that Student 4’s Mother’s hearsay evidence, on its own, is insufficient to prove this allegation on a balance of probabilities. Without having received any direct evidence from Student 4, or any other reliable evidence in support of this allegation, the Committee finds that the inconsistency between Student 4’s Mother’s testimony and statement to the Investigator is detrimental to the reliability of her evidence.

Legal Conclusions

The Member is guilty of professional misconduct

The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct set out above gives rise to a finding of professional misconduct. In particular, the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5); she abused students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7); she abused students physically contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1); she abused students psychologically or emotionally contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2); she failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15); 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, she engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).

1) The Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5)

The Committee finds that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession. Although no expert evidence was provided to demonstrate what the standards were with respect to this type of behaviour in the classroom, the Committee accepts College Counsel’s submission that expert evidence was not required in this case because the Member’s physical abuse of Students 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the Male Student is conduct that is so egregious that it is self-evidently misconduct.²

The Member’s physical abuse of Students 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the Male Student was a clear breach of The Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and The Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (Exhibit 12). The Member showed a blatant disregard for the ethical standards of care, trust, respect and integrity by grabbing Student 1’s arm and shaking it; by pushing Student 2 out the door; by grabbing Student 3 by the shoulders and shaking him; by taking Student 4 by the shoulders, shaking him, and pushing him into his desk; and by putting her hands on the Male Student’s shoulder and physically shaking him. She also failed to “promote and participate in the creation of [a] collaborative, safe and supportive learning [community],” as set out in The Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (Exhibit 12). Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority, and the Member abused this trust when she physically abused Student 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the Male Student.

Further, the Committee finds that the Member’s misconduct outlined in paragraphs 8, 10(a), (c), (g), (h), (i), (k), (n), (o), and 12 of the Notice of Hearing constitute a clear breach of The Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and The Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (Exhibit 12). By not allowing Student 5 to go to the office to get ice after she had fallen and hit her head (paragraph 8 of the Notice of Hearing), the Member breached the ethical standard of care by putting Student 5’s safety at risk. The Member also failed to “promote and participate in the creation of [a] safe and supportive learning [community],” as set out in The Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (Exhibit 12).

By taking Student 6’s book, slamming it down in front of him and saying “if you can’t do this work, then I am going to lower you to a different level” (paragraph 10(a) of the Notice of Hearing); by telling Student 7 that his mother would not like his Mother’s Day artwork because the sun was too big (paragraph 10(c) of the Notice of Hearing); by telling Student 10 her work was not as good as her sister’s work (paragraph 10(g) of the Notice of Hearing); by getting upset with the Male Student and telling him “baby, do I need to change your diaper?” (paragraph 10(h) of the Notice of Hearing ); by ripping the Male Student’s paper away from him after he got paint on his arms and saying “forget it, you’re not doing it. You can sit and watch.” (paragraph 10(i) of the Notice of Hearing); and by ripping Student 13’s artwork in front of the class (paragraph 12 of the Notice of Hearing) the Member breached the ethical standard of respect. She failed to honour these students’ “emotional wellness and cognitive development”, as set out in the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession (Exhibit 12). The Member failed to promote the standard of commitment to students and student learning by failing to show respect and dedication to these students’ care, and also failed to “promote and participate in the creation of [a] safe and supportive learning [community],” as set out in The Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (Exhibit 12).

By telling Student 4 to remove the pink pants from his Nutcracker art project and stating that if he wore pink pants he would grow up to be a homosexual man (paragraph 10 (k) of the Notice of Hearing), the Member breached the ethical standard of respect by “failing to model respect for spiritual and cultural values, social justice…[and] freedom”, set out in the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession (Exhibit 12). The Member also failed to “promote and participate in the creation of [a] safe and supportive learning [community],” as set out in The Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (Exhibit 12).

By yelling at students when they would forget instructions and saying things such as “can’t you listen?”, “can’t you follow instructions?”, “did I say to do that?” (paragraph 10(n) of the Notice of Hearing), and by yelling at students during dance if they could not follow different movement patterns (paragraph 10(o) of the Notice of Hearing), the Member breached the ethical standard of care by failing to show “commitment to students’ well-being and learning through positive influence”, as set out in the Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession (Exhibit 12). The Member also failed to “promote and participate in the creation of [a] safe and supportive learning [community],” as set out in The Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession (Exhibit 12).

The Committee finds that the various acts of misconduct delineated above show that the Member consistently displayed a lack of professional judgement. The Member also continually demonstrated a disregard for her students’ physical and emotional well-being.

2) The Member abused a student verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7)

The Committee finds that the Member abused her students verbally on several occasions. Generally, the Member was verbally abusive towards her students when she yelled at students who forgot instructions, or forgot movement patterns in dance, and when she said words to the effect of “can’t you listen?”, “can’t you follow instructions?”, and/or “did I say to do that?” (paragraphs 10(n) and (o) in the Notice of Hearing).

Further, the Member was verbally abusive towards the Male Student when: she yelled at him saying “you are supposed to be cleaning up”; she said to him “baby do I need to change your diaper?”; and, when she ripped his paper away and said “forget it, you’re not doing it. You can sit there and do nothing.” (paragraphs 5(b), 10(h) and (i) in the Notice of Hearing).

The Member was verbally abusive towards Student 6 when she took his book, slammed it down in front of him, and said “if you can’t do this work, then I am going to lower you to a different level.” (paragraph 10(a) in the Notice of Hearing).

The Member was verbally abusive towards Student 7 when she told him that his Mother would not like his Mother’s Day artwork because the sun was too big (paragraph 10(c) of the Notice of Hearing).

The Member was verbally abusive towards Student 8 when she told him that his train station could not be included in the class’ Pioneer Village after previously approving the project (paragraph 10(d) of the Notice of Hearing).

The Member was verbally abusive towards Student 10 when she told her that her work was not as good as her sister’s (paragraph 10(g) of the Notice of Hearing).

Finally, the Member was verbally abusive towards Student 4 when she told him he could not use pink pants on his Nutcracker project because only homosexual men wear pink and if he wore pink that would mean he would grow up to be a homosexual man (paragraph 10(k) of the Notice of Hearing).

These comments demonstrate a pattern of verbally abusive behaviour. The Member yelled at students, which is unacceptable. Members of the profession are expected to communicate respectfully with students at all times and to behave as positive role models even when they become frustrated. The Member also made a series of demeaning and insensitive comments to students, which included homophobic comments. The Member’s misconduct was hurtful to students and showed a significant disregard for their well-being. The Member was either unable or unwilling to use the necessary, and indeed fundamental, skills to deal professionally and respectfully with young students. The Committee therefore finds that the Member’s conduct was verbally abusive towards students.

3) The Member abused a student physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1)

The Committee finds that the Member abused Students 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the Male Student physically. The Member: grabbed Student 1’s arm and shook it; pushed Student 2 out the door; grabbed Student 3 by the shoulders and shook him; put her hands on the Male Student’s shoulder and physically shook him; and took Student 4 by the shoulders, shook him, and pushed him into his desk. This conduct clearly constitutes physical abuse. The use of excessive or inappropriate physical force by a teacher is completely unacceptable.

4) The Member abused a student psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2)

The Committee finds that the Member psychologically or emotionally abused multiple students. There was ample evidence of psychological or emotional abuse in this case, including the following.

The Committee finds that the Member’s physical abuse of Students 1, 2, 3 and 4, and the Male Student, also constitutes psychological or emotional abuse. By physically abusing these students, the Member betrayed the trust that these students put in her, and this proved to have a negative psychological or emotional impact on these students. For example, Student 4 testified that when the Member grabbed him by his shoulders and shook him, he felt “threatened and scared” and that the Member was “just scary to be around.” He testified that after he disclosed this incident (among others) to his parents, he sought counselling to help him cope. Similarly, Student 4’s Mother testified that, although her son was typically energetic, active, outgoing and charismatic, he became “withdrawn” after the incidents involving the Member and on more than one occasion he “verbalized that he was afraid the Member would find out he told on her.” She also stated that Student 4 had started wetting the bed. Further, Student 4’s Mother testified that after the disclosure, Student 4 started going to counselling. She stated that his child psychologist diagnosed him with [XXX] and that the root cause of the [XXX] was “the abuse [Student 4] encountered from [the Member].”

In addition, the Male Student testified that he was embarrassed and upset when the Member said, “baby, do I need to change your diaper?” He stated that “no kid wants to get [that] comment in grade [XXX].” Further, in her affidavit, Student 10’s Mother stated that Student 10 was very upset after the Member told Student 10 her work was not as good as her sister’s (see Exhibit 10). Demeaning students and publicly embarrassing them constitutes psychological or emotional abusive in the circumstances of this case.

Moreover, Colleague 2, the Investigator, and the Principal testified about the negative impact the Member had on Student 8 when she refused to allow his train station to be part of the class’ Pioneer Village project. Colleague 2 testified that Student 8’s Mother had told her that her son (Student 8) was upset and disappointed. Both the Investigator and the Principal testified that Student 8’s Mother had reported to them that her son was “very upset” (Exhibit 9, tab 1, allegation 3; Exhibit 7, tab 2).

Additionally, the Principal and Investigator testified about the negative impact the Member had on Student 6 after she slammed his book down in front of him and said “if you can’t do this work, then I am going to lower you to a different level”. The Principal testified that Student 6’s Mother disclosed to her that Student 6 “is still dealing with the repercussions” from this incident (Exhibit 7, tab 2). Student 6’s Mother explained to the Principal that, because of the Member conduct, Student 6 was seeing a psychologist. Similarly, the Investigator testified that she met with Student 6’s Mother to interview her about the above noted incident. Student 6’s Mother disclosed to the Investigator that she was volunteering in the class when it happened, and, that as a result of the incident, Student 6 was afraid to come to school.

Accordingly, the Committee finds that the Member engaged in a pattern of psychologically or emotionally abusive behaviour, which had a serious, negative impact on many of her students.

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

The Committee finds that the Member failed to comply with section 264(1) of the Education Act, which sets out the duties of a teacher. The Member demonstrated a complete lack of concern for the physical and emotional well-being of her students when she physically, verbally, and psychologically or emotionally abused multiple students.

Section 264(1)(b) of the Education Act provides that it is the duty of a teacher to, “encourage pupils in the pursuit of learning.” Further, Section 264(1)(c) of the Education Act provides that it is the duty of a teacher to “inculcate by precept and example […] the highest regard for truth, justice, loyalty, love of country, humanity, benevolence, sobriety, industry, frugality, purity, temperance and all other virtues.” The Member failed to comply with the aforementioned duties by: grabbing a student’s arm and shaking it; pushing a student out the door because she was too slow; grabbing a student’s shoulders and shaking him; taking a student by the shoulder, shaking him, and pushing him into a desk; not allowing a student to get ice from the office after she had fallen and hit her head; slamming a book down and threatening a student that she would lower him to a different level if he could not complete the work; telling a student his mother would not like his Mother’s Day art project; allowing a student to complete another student’s artwork while he was on vacation; telling one student her work was not as good as her sister’s; asking a student “baby, do I need to change your diaper?”; ripping artwork away from a student and telling him to “sit there and do nothing”; telling a student that if we wore pink he would grow up to be a homosexual man; yelling at students if they could not follow instructions or dance patterns; and ripping up a student’s artwork in front of the class.

These examples provide ample support for the finding that the Member failed to fulfil her duties as a teacher, as set out in the Education Act. The Member’s repeated disregard for her students’ well-being is alarming.

6) 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)

The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional. The public and the teaching profession do not tolerate the physical, verbal, and psychological or emotional abuse of students. Through her conduct, the Member violated the trust that the public places in teachers. When parents send their children to school, they expect that they will be safe. The Member’s breach of this trust was repugnant. She physically abused multiple students. She also verbally, psychologically and emotionally abused multiple students with her demeaning and demoralizing conduct. This type of behaviour is completely unacceptable. It betrays the trust that students, and their parents place in teachers. A reasonable member of the profession would find the Member’s conduct in this regard disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional.

7) The Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19)

The Committee finds that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member of the teaching profession by physically, verbally, psychologically and emotionally abusing multiple students. Through her egregious conduct, the Member undermined the reputation of the teaching profession and the trust that parents, students and the public place in teachers. It reflects poorly on the profession as a whole when members behave disgracefully, as the Member has.

PENALTY

The Committee will schedule a subsequent date on which to hear submissions with respect to penalty.

Date: October 25, 2018

Vicki Shannon, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel

Godwin Ifedi

Member, Discipline Panel

Sara Nouini, OCT

Member, Discipline Panel

Footnotes

1. 1During the course of the hearing, College Counsel advised the Committee that they were not asking the Panel to make a finding in regard to this particular.
2. 2See Novick v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2016 ONSC 508 at paragraph 71.