DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Ontario College of Teachers v Reid 2019 ONOCT 100
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
Jeffrey Alan Reid, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
JEFFREY ALAN REID (REGISTRATION #587324)
PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair Tom Potter Stéphane Vallée, OCT
HEARD: October 28, 2019
Stephanie Sugar and Vincent DeMarco, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Richard Evenson and Eric Bundgard for Jeffrey Alan Reid
Renée Kopp, 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.
1This matter was heard before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on October 28, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).
2Jeffrey Alan Reid (the “Member”) attended the hearing and had legal representation. The Panel was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.
A. PUBLICATION ban
3The Panel ordered a publication ban pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”), which makes such an order mandatory. 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.
B. THE ALLEGATIONS
4The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing dated October 6, 2017 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Jeffrey Alan Reid is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);1
(d) 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);
(e) 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);2 and
(f) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
C. AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
5College Counsel presented the Panel with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Jeffrey Alan Reid is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Member’s Registered Information.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (the “Board”) and a relatively new member of the teaching profession.
During the 2015/2016 academic year, the Member was a Long Term Occasional teacher at [XXX] School, in the city of Bowmanville (the “School”). During this time, Student 1 was a Grade [XXX] male student at the School in the Member’s class.
The Member’s Conduct Relating to Student 1
- From January to June 2016 the Member made inappropriate comments to Student 1, including:
(a) Telling Student 1 words to the effect of, “If you can’t spell the word[XXX], you must not be a very good one”. A number of other students heard the comment and laughed about it;
(b) Telling Student 1 words to the effect of, “I could do without hearing further from you today”.
The Member, in making such comments, did not intend to offend Student 1.
Notwithstanding the Member’s intentions, Student 1 felt very hurt and belittled by the Member’s comments.
On one or more occasions, the Member directed Student 1 to deal with the Educational Assistant who worked in the class, and did not give proper assistance to Student 1.
The School investigated the complaints and the Member’s conduct, met with the Member, and concluded in its opinion that the Member’s conduct breached Board policies and the Ethical Standards for the teaching profession. A copy of the Board’s letter, dated April 1, 2016 is attached as Exhibit “B”.
The School consequently suspended the Member for one day in April 2016.
After the Member was suspended, on or about June 1, 2016, the Member again made inappropriate comments to Student 1.
The School conducted a second investigation relating to the Member’s conduct and again met with the Member. The School again found in its opinion that the Member’s conduct violated the requirements of legislation and Board policy. A copy of the School’s letter, dated June 23, 2016, is attached as Exhibit “C”.
The Member was again suspended for one day in June 2016.
The Member grieved the suspensions, and the Member’s Board subsequently reduced the discipline in both cases to a formal written warning.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1-12 above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] 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 Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading guilty 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 Discipline Committee’s decision and a summary of its reasons, including reference to his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (c) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7.2) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel requested that the Panel find that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional only (and not disgraceful or dishonourable). The Panel granted these requests.
7Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 28, 2019 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional only] and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
8The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 12 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Panel accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute professional misconduct under the headings of misconduct set out above. The Admitted Facts demonstrate that the Member made several inappropriate comments to Student 1 that made the Grade [XXX] student feel belittled in front of his peers and failed to provide him with pedagogically appropriate learning support.
9The Member’s comments to Student 1 and the Member’s inadequate support of Student 1’s learning failed to uphold the ethical standards of the teaching profession. Specifically, the Member’s hurtful and dismissive remarks to Student 1 failed to demonstrate the standards of care and respect, which among other things, require that teachers empathize with students facing learning challenges and that teachers demonstrate “interest and insight for developing students’ potential.”
10Further, the Member’s comments to Student 1 constituted “verbal abuse of a student” when he made hurtful comments to Student 1 that humiliated him in front of his peers. Among other things, the Member told Student 1 “if you can’t spell the word[XXX], you must not be a very good one.” Though the Member did not intend to offend Student 1, his comments nonetheless constitute verbal abuse.
11The Member’s misconduct demonstrates that he contravened section 264(1) of the Education Act by failing to fulfill his duty to set a positive example for students, as at least one of the insensitive comments was made in the presence of other students. The Member’s insensitive remarks undermined Student 1 in the classroom and demonstrate a lack of professionalism by the Member that reflects poorly on the Member as a steward of the public trust, and reflects poorly on the profession as a whole.
F. PENALTY DECISION
12The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 28, 2019, the Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and made the following order:
The Member is directed to 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”);
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions, or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions, or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) within 180 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management and professional communication, subject to the following conditions;
(i) the Member will provide to the course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Orders 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;
(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.
- There shall be no order as to costs.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
13The Panel accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Panel recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Panel’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 Panel finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty falls within a range of acceptable outcomes, based on the following prior decisions of the Discipline Committee presented by the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Gefter, 2017 ONOCT 47, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Sypus, 2018 ONOCT 9.
14The Panel considered the Member’s circumstances in comparison to the cases provided. The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are that the Member’s repeated inappropriate comments were serious, led to emotional harm for the young Grade [XXX] student and the Member was disciplined on two occasions by the Board for similar conduct. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member participated in the hearings process and admitted his misconduct, saving the time and expense of a contested hearing. After weighing these factors, the Panel accepts that the penalty proposed by the parties is reasonable.
15The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand by his peers. As part of their professional practice, teachers must demonstrate professionalism, respect and a commitment to student wellbeing in all their interactions with students. The Member failed to meet these expectations by speaking to Student 1 in a demeaning way, causing him to feel diminished and undermined by his teacher. The reprimand will allow the Panel to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
16The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding classroom management and professional communication will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. 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.
17The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: October 28, 2019
Rebecca Forte, OCT Chair, Discipline Panel
Tom Potter Member, Discipline Panel
Stéphane Vallée, OCT Member, Discipline Panel