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
Shawn David Alan James, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
SHAWN DAVID ALAN JAMES (REGISTRATION #594443)
PANEL: Tom Potter, Chair Irene Dembek, OCT Rebecca Forte, OCT
HEARD: April 2, 2019
Ava Arbuck of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Eleanor Enniss, Law Clerk
Lauren Sheffield of Cavalluzzo LLP, for Shawn David Alan James
Erica Richler 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 April 2, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated February 7, 2018 (Exhibit 1) was served on Shawn David Alan James (the “Member”), inviting him to participate in the scheduling of the hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for April 2, 2019.
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
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that Shawn David Alan James is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers 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);1
(c) he abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);2
(d) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);3
(e) he failed to supervise adequately a person or persons under his professional supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
(f) he failed to comply with the Act, the regulations or the bylaws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);4
(g) 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);
(h) 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
(i) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
College Counsel presented the Committee with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Shawn David Alan James is 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 with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Kawartha Pine Ridge District School Board (the “Board”) as an Occasional Teacher.
On November 30, 2011 while assigned to teach Grade [XXX] at [XXX] School in Peterborough, Ontario, the Member permitted a number of students to leave his classroom on their own to work independently in the school library. The students were observed wandering the halls and working unsupervised in the library, contrary to the Member’s assumption that they would be supervised while in the library. All were eventually returned to the Member’s classroom without incident. The Principal provided the Member with a Letter of Expectation dated December 21, 2011 which included a direction to ensure students were supervised at all times, and to arrange for alternate supervision with a teacher in advance, if he wished to have students work in the library or elsewhere.
On March 24, 2014 the Member was assigned to teach [XXX] at [XXX] School in [XXX], Ontario. While teaching the Grade [XXX] class, the Member raised his voice to students who were not on task and were not paying attention in class. The Member received a Letter of Expectation from the Principal dated May 5, 2014 which included a direction to speak to students in a respectful, professional manner in the classroom and to act as a role model to students, and noted that he had taken steps to improve his classroom management skills.
On May 20, 2015 while working as a long term occasional (“LTO”) teacher at [XXX] School in Bowmanville, Ontario, during dismissal time the Member stood in the hallway in front of a door that he understood was not to be used by students. A male student rushed toward him in what looked like an attempt to scoot by and exit through the unauthorized door. The Member put out his hand to signal to the student to stop, which made contact with the student’s shoulder, causing the student to stumble back. The Member received a letter from the Principal dated June 19, 2015 which included a direction to use verbal techniques instead of physical intervention when de-escalating or managing student behaviours, and to speak to students in a manner that is professional and respectful. The letter indicated that the Member would be removed from his LTO position and the Board LTO list until he could provide evidence that he was able to apply effective classroom management skills as used in his daily interactions with students.
On October 9, 2015 the Member was assigned to teach [XXX] at [XXX] School in Peterborough, Ontario. During the class, a group of boys were off track and the Member said to them in a sharp voice, “enough, get back to work!” in front of the other students. As a result, students reported feeling afraid to ask for help or help each other with the assigned work. The Member acknowledged he has a loud voice and spoke loudly enough to be heard throughout the classroom. He acknowledged he should have spoken to disruptive students privately and not in the presence of the other students.
The Member resigned from the Board, effective October 30, 2015.
Professional Development:
- The Member has engaged in the following professional development courses facilitated by the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (“ETFO”), in order to develop his teaching practice:
(a) in May 2014, he completed two professional development workshops on classroom management;
(b) in July 2015, he completed a 5-day Planning and Programming Course which addressed professionalism, planning and assessment, and classroom management;
(c) in November 2015, he completed a Classroom Management Course that focused on managing students, time, curriculum and resources;
(d) in December 2015, he completed a Boundaries Training course with a focus on appropriate communications and responses with students, and professional judgment.
Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B” are copies of Certificates of Professional Activity confirming completion of the courses referred to in (b), (c) and (d) above. No certificates were issued for the workshops referred to in (a) above.
In February 2016, the Member was hired as an Occasional Teacher with the Durham District School Board (“Durham Board”). In June 2017, he accepted a permanent contract position with the Durham Board. The Member has resigned from the Durham Board, effective March 31, 2019.
The Member acknowledges that his conduct fell below the standards of the profession. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “C” is the College’s Ethical Standards for the Teaching Profession and the Standards of Practice for the Teaching Profession.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document,5 the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 10 above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and admits the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(11), 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 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;
(e) he understands that any agreement between the parties with respect to the penalty proposed in this document 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 the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Counsel for the College requested that the allegations of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (f) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2) and 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel requested that the Committee find that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional only (and not disgraceful or dishonourable). The Committee granted these requests.
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of the parties, the Committee rendered an oral decision on April 2, 2019 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(11), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
Paragraphs 3 to 6 and 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5). The Member admitted that in these circumstances, his classroom management practices fell below the standards of the profession.
Paragraph 3 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrates that the Member failed to supervise adequately a person or persons under his professional supervision, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11).
Paragraphs 3 to 6 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea 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 the Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). As part of the duties of a teacher, members are expected to act as role models for students. By not managing student behaviour in a respectful and professional manner, the Member fell short of meeting these expectations.
Paragraphs 3 to 6 and 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). Disciplining students with a sharp voice to the extent that they were afraid, using physical means to stop a student from exiting, and failing to adequately supervise students demonstrates a lack of professionalism.
Paragraphs 3 to 6 and 10 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). The Member’s misconduct in this case reflects poorly on the profession as a whole.
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 to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person today6 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 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 a return to a teaching position or to any position requiring a Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding classroom management, 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;
(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 courses outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written certificate 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 April 2, 2019 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. The parties indicated on the record that they agreed to modify paragraph 1 of the Joint Submission on Penalty so that the Member, who was present at the hearing, would be directed to receive an oral reprimand from the Committee immediately following the hearing, rather than for the Member to arrange a date to receive an oral reprimand within 90 days of the Committee’s Order.
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. Gumkowski, 2016 ONOCT 22, Ontario College of Teachers v. Boissonneault, 2015 ONOCT 4 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Law, 2016 ONOCT 32.
The Committee finds that the Member’s pattern of inappropriate classroom management warrants a reprimand by his peers. Although the Committee accepts that the Member may not have intended to demean students or make them feel uncomfortable, and that there is no evidence of prolonged harm to students, the Member’s conduct in this case was nevertheless unprofessional. On several occasions, the Member demonstrated a failure to use appropriate classroom management techniques, and his interactions with students were unnecessarily aggressive. Members of the teaching profession are expected to promote safe and supportive learning environments and to model appropriate, respectful and professional behaviour. By failing to adequately supervise students, by using physical interventions to address student behaviour, and by using a sharp voice with students in front of their peers, the Member failed to meet these expectations. The reprimand will allow the Committee 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.
While the Member has previously completed professional development coursework relating to classroom management in 2014 and 2015 (as set out above at paragraph 8 of Exhibit 2), an additional classroom management course completed prior to returning to teaching will refresh the Member’s professional skills. A current classroom management course will also equip the Member to put into practice effective communication strategies and appropriate discipline techniques for 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: April 7, 2019
______________________________
Tom Potter
Chair, Discipline Panel
______________________________
Irene Dembek, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
______________________________
Rebecca Forte, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel