DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
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
Charles Julien Dayfoot, a retired member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
CHARLES JULIEN DAYFOOT (REGISTRATION #468649)
PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair Diane Ballantyne, OCT Jonathan Rose
HEARD: December 18, 2018
Stephanie Sugar of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Eleanor Enniss, Law Clerk
Robyn White of Cavalluzzo LLP, for Charles Julien Dayfoot
Robin McKechney 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 December 18, 2018 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated April 12, 2016 (Exhibit 1) was served on Charles Julien Dayfoot (the “Member”), requesting his presence on April 29, 2016 to set a date for hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for December 18, 2018.
The Member was in attendance for the hearing and had legal representation. The Committee was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.
THE ALLEGATIONS
IT IS ALLEGED that Charles Julien Dayfoot is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in subsection 30(2) of the Ontario College of Teacher’s Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7);
(c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(e) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(f) he committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
(g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
STATEMENT OF UNCONTESTED FACTS
College Counsel presented the Committee with the parties’ Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest (Exhibit 2), which provides as follows:
At all material times, Charles Julien Dayfoot is [sic] a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information respecting the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Peel District School Board (the “Board”) as a grade [XXX] [XXX] and [XXX] teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”), in [XXX], Ontario.
At all material times, Student 1, Student 2 and Student 3 were Grade [XXX] male students and were taught by the Member.
On or about May 13, 2014, during the Member’s [XXX] class, the Member asked Student 1 to sit next to him because he had continued to disrupt the class by talking and heckling other students during their [XXX] performances, in spite of the Member’s verbal request for him to stop. The Member told Student 1 that if he spoke again he would send him to the [XXX] room to see Ms. Mathura. At the of end class, Student 1 yelled “WooHoo” at the [XXX]. The Member stepped on Student 1’s toes and kicked him in the side of his leg.
On or about May 14, 2014, at the end of [XXX] class, as per regular classroom routine, the Member requested that the students line up in a single file line to exit the classroom. Some of the students, including Student 1, were not cooperating and were talking. The Member took the left arm of Student 1, which left a red mark and pulled him into the hallway causing him to bang his right shoulder on the doorframe. The Member then grabbed Student 1 and sent him to the back of the line. Student 1 reported feeling upset and scared by the Member’s actions due to the incident described at paragraph 4 above.
Following this incident Student 1 attended his next class with Teacher Terri Byrne. Student 1 approached Ms. Byrne visibly upset. Ms. Byrne reported that Student 1 had told her that the Member “had grabbed his arm at the end of their class and yanked on his arm, causing him to bang his shoulder against the doorframe.” Ms. Byrne observed that Student 1 had a red mark on his forearm and reported that Student 1 had told her that is where the Member had grabbed him.
After class, Ms. Byrne provided Vice-Principal Nica Apa the details of the situation and was advised to call the Children’s Aid Society (“CAS”).
On June 12, 2014, the CAS wrote a letter to Ms. Apa verifying concerns regarding “use of excessive force causing harm, as well as concerns regarding use of excessive force causing risk of harm.” Attached hereto and marked as marked as Exhibit “B” is a copy of the letter dated June 12, 2014.
On or about May 14, 2014, Student 2 was laughing and talking during [XXX] class. The Member slapped the right arm of Student 2, then grabbed Student 2 by the shirt and pushed him into the hallway. The Member told Student 2 to go to the [XXX] room to have Ms. Mathura supervise him. Student 2 did not mention to Ms. Mathura that the Member had slapped him.
In or around May 2014, during the Member’s [XXX] class, while teaching the lesson [XXX], Student 2 was not paying attention. To get the attention of Student 2, the Member kneed Student 2 from behind the chair and picked the chair up off the ground with the student still on the chair. The Member tilted the chair forward to return all four legs to the floor. The Member then pushed Student 2’s chair towards the desk to tuck him back into his desk.
In or around March to May 2014, the Member had requested that the students line up in a single file line to exit the class, during which time the class was talking. Student 3 was not listening as he was leaving for his next class. The Member pulled the student’s hoodie from behind to get his attention. This choked the student.
In or around May 2014, the Member banged a plastic ruler on a desk, like a gavel, to get the class’ attention, causing the ruler to break. A piece of the ruler broke off and hit Student 1. The Member apologized to the student when he learnt that the ruler hit the student.
Between January and May 2014, the Member would throw students’ books into the hallway and out of the classroom.
Between January and May 2014, Student 3 felt scared of the Member because “he’s yelling at you when you talk.” The Member would often raise his voice at Student 1 and Student 2 in order to redirect them and remind them of classroom expectations when they were acting out or disrupting the class.
Between January and May 2014, the Member would often raise his voice at Student 1 and Student 2 and tell them to “be quiet and sit down.” The Member would regularly raise his voice and or yell at the students who weren’t doing their work. The Member has received past letters of discipline regarding classroom management issues and the expectation that the Member refrain from physical contact with students when re-directing them, dated June 23, 2009, March 11, 2010, June 8, 2010 and May 11, 2011. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is a copy of the discipline and expectation letters.
The Member has received past letters assigning him to home with full pay, dated April 11, 2011, November 23, 2011 and May 14, 2014. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “D” is a copy of the letters.
On August 25, 2014, the Member received a letter from the Board for inappropriate and excessive force with students in his care. The Member was suspended for two days without pay and required to attend an ETFO classroom management workshop by the end of October 2014. The Member was also provided an instructional coach or resource teacher to work with him on positive classroom management strategies. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “E” is a copy of the letter dated August 25, 2014.
PLEA OF NO CONTEST
By this document,1 the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-17 above (the “Uncontested Facts”) for the purposes of the proceeding only.
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) he understands that the Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct for the purposes of the proceeding only, and can accept those facts constitute professional misconduct;
(e) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(f) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
The Member provides this plea of no contest pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Procedure of the Discipline Committee under protection of the Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter E. 23, for the purpose of this proceeding under the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, chapter 12, and for no other purpose. The Member’s plea of no contest does not constitute an admission by the Member as to the facts or findings in any other civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
In light of the Uncontested Facts and circumstances, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Having considered the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and the submissions of the parties, the Committee rendered an oral decision on December 18, 2018 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 17 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Uncontested Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 4-16 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5).
Paragraphs 14 and 15 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students verbally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7).
Paragraphs 4-12 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1).
Paragraph 5, 6, 8, 14, 15, and 16 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).
Paragraphs 4-6 and 9-16 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).
Paragraphs 4-16 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18).
Paragraphs 4-16 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this matter would be that the Committee:
direct that the Member appear before the Committee immediately following the hearing of this matter to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
direct the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of four months commencing on the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register.
direct the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) prior to the Member returning to any position which requires a Certificate of Qualification and Registration (“Teaching Position”), the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding anger management, subject to the following conditions;
(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;
(iii) the course shall be completed no more than three months before commencing or returning to a Teaching Position.
(b) within 30 days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:
(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.
PENALTY DECISION
In an oral decision rendered on December 18, 2018, the Committee accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the parties and made an order in accordance with its terms, as set out above.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Committee recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Committee’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. The Committee finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and is reasonable given the circumstances of this case. The penalty proposed by the parties is also within a reasonable range, based on the following analogous cases presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Hyde, 2016 ONOCT 25 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Foster, 2013 ONOCT 23.
The Committee finds that the Member’s rough and aggressive conduct directed at students warrant a reprimand by his peers. Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority. They are expected to foster safe and supportive learning communities. In this case, the Member’s conduct fell short of meeting this expectation when he repeatedly made inappropriate physical contact with students and when he yelled at them. Among other things, the Member stepped on a student’s toes and kicked him in the leg; he grabbed a student by the arm and pulled him into the hallway causing him to bang his arm on the doorframe, which left a red mark on his forearm; he slapped the arm of a student and pushed him into the hallway; he kneed a student from behind; he pulled a student’s hoodie from behind causing the student to choke; and he often raised his voice or yelled at students who were not doing their work. The Member’s conduct made students feel uncomfortable and scared. The reprimand will allow the Committee to address directly its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
Given the serious and repeated nature of the Member’s misconduct, the Committee finds that a four-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. The duration of the suspension is within a reasonable range as established by the case law presented by the College. Although the Member is currently retired, recording the fact of the suspension on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession by informing them that there are serious consequences for engaging in the type of misconduct at issue in this case.
Should the Member decide to return to the teaching profession, the Committee finds that the course of instruction regarding anger management will assist in his rehabilitation. The coursework will remind the Member of his obligations as a teacher and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: December 18, 2018
Rebecca Forte, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Diane Ballantyne, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Jonathan Rose
Member, Discipline Panel