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
Susan Elizabeth Inch, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
SUSAN ELIZABETH INCH (REGISTRATION #478209)
PANEL: Alicia Nunn, OCT, Chair
Josée Landriault, OCT
Tom Potter
HEARD: October 24, 2019
Jean-François Schaan, for the Ontario College of Teachers
Heather Ann McConnell, for Susan Elizabeth Inch
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 24, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”).
2Susan Elizabeth Inch (the “Member”) did not attend the hearing but 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 February 11, 2019 (Exhibit 1) are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Susan Elizabeth Inch 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 psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(d) 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);
(e) 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
(f) she 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:
Susan Elizabeth Inch is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached as Appendix “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Hamilton-Wentworth District School Board as a teacher at [XXX] School (the “School”), in Hamilton, Ontario.
During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member was the grade [XXX] [XXX] teacher of Student 1, a male student at the School.
On or about February 9, 2018, the Member had a discussion with her students about the Olympic Winter Games. During this conversation, Student 1 shared that he was supporting his home country of [XXX]. The Member then asked Student 1 a question to the effect of “[w]hy do you live here?” referring to Canada. If the Member were to testify she would say that she told the entire class that they should support Canada at the Olympics. When Student 1 said that he was supporting his home country of [XXX], the Member said “Canada is also your home country, you should support Canada, don’t you live here in Canada?”
During the 2017-2018 academic year, the Member used her personal cell phone to audio record student behaviour in her classroom. If the Member were to testify, she would say that she did this on one occasion so she could illustrate to her administration the behavioural concerns she had been raising in respect of some of the students in her class.
The Board initiated an investigation into the circumstances described at paragraphs 4 and 5, above. On March 19, 2018, the Board issued a Letter of Discipline to the Member and suspended the Member for three days without pay. Attached as Appendix “B” is a copy of this Letter of Discipline, dated March 19, 2018.
The Board had previously suspended the Member for 3 days in 2016. Attached as Appendix “C” is a copy of the letter of discipline dated November 3, 2016.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document, the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-7 above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct that is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) she understands fully the nature of the allegations against her;
(b) she understands that by signing this document she is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(d) she 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 her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) she understands that any agreement between her counsel and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) she understands and acknowledges that she is executing this Agreement voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the College and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
D. DECISION
6Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Panel rendered an oral decision on October 24, 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(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) and 1(19).
E. REASONS FOR DECISION
7The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 7 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against them. They 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 insensitive remarks in class that had a negative impact on Student 1 and used her cellular phone to record students on one occasion without a valid pedagogical reason.
8Through her comments directed at Student 1, the Member failed to maintain the ethical standards of the profession, specifically those of care, respect and trust, which, among other things, provide that members are expected to demonstrate their commitment to “students’ well-being and learning through positive influence”. The Member’s comments to Student 1 constitute verbal, psychological and/or emotional abuse, because they were culturally insensitive and singled out a student in front of his peers. The Member’s misconduct demonstrates that she contravened subsection 264(1) of the Education Act by failing to act as an appropriate role model. The Member’s insensitive remarks and her improper use of her cellular phone in the classroom represent conduct that was disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional and unbecoming of a member.
F. PENALTY DECISION
9The parties agreed to a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), which was presented to the Panel. In an oral decision rendered on October 24, 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 person1 at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, at 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, and that the fact of the reprimand 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, and the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations is to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) prior to commencing or resuming any teaching position or any position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration (a “Teaching Position”) is required, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete, at her own expense, a course of instruction in classroom management and cultural sensitivity. The course shall be pre-approved by the Registrar and be subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to a 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 Order of the Discipline Committee; and
(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; and
(b) within 30 days of her completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner 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.
G. REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
10The Panel had concerns that there was insufficient information provided by the parties to explain why the jointly proposed reprimand should be delivered by teleconference rather than in person (as originally contemplated in the Joint Submission on Penalty). However, the Panel recognizes that the parties consented to the delivery of the reprimand by teleconference, and 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’s concerns with the form of delivery of the reprimand do not meet the threshold for rejecting a joint submission. The Panel therefore accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties, together with the requested amendment to the delivery method of the oral reprimand.
11The aggravating factors in the Member’s case are the facts that: the Member made culturally insensitive remarks to a student, which the parties agreed were psychologically or emotionally abusive; and the Member used her cellular phone to record students during class, which represented a clear error in judgment. In terms of mitigating factors, the Member admitted her 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.
12The Panel finds that the Member’s inappropriate conduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. Members are expected to serve as role models for students. The Member did not meet that expectation by making culturally inappropriate comments to a student and by failing to ensure her classroom was an inclusive environment in which students feel safe and welcome. While the conduct at issue in this case falls at the lower end of the spectrum of professional misconduct, the Member had received prior discipline from her Board for an unrelated incident. The fact that the Member was suspended by her Board on two separate occasions (albeit for unrelated incidents) raises concerns regarding her professional judgment. 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.
13The Panel finds that the course of instruction regarding boundary violations and cultural sensitivity will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member. The coursework will remind the Member of her obligations as a teacher and will help her to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
14The Panel is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: October 31, 2019
Alicia Nunn, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Josée Landriault, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Tom Potter
Member, Discipline Panel