DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Wilson 2019 ONOCT 41

Date: 2019-05-09

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

Jennifer Louise Wilson, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.

BETWEEN:

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

– and –

JENNIFER LOUISE WILSON (REGISTRATION #437354)

PANEL: Rebecca Forte, OCT, Chair

Sara Nouini, OCT

Tom Potter

HEARD: May 6, 2019

Zirka Jakibchuk and Jean-François Schaan, for Ontario College of Teachers

Kirsty Niglas-Collins of KNC Law assisted by Jack Brown, Student-at-Law, for Jennifer Louise Wilson

Renée Kopp of Jones Litigation Counsel PC, 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 May 6, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.

A Notice of Hearing dated July 30, 2018 (Exhibit 1) was served on Jennifer Louise Wilson (the “Member) inviting her to participate in the scheduling of the hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for May 6, 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 the Member is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (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);¹

(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).

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:

Jennifer Louise Wilson is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. In June 2000, the Member obtained a Certificate of Qualification and Registration. Attached hereto and marked 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 Toronto District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] (the “School”) in Scarborough, Ontario.
At all materials times, the Member was a [XXX] teacher and [XXX] at the School. Student 1 was a male student in the Member’s Grade [XXX] class. Student 2 and Student 3 were students at the School.
On or about January 27 and 28, 2017, the Member engaged in communication with Student 2 through social media, in which the Member:

(a) gave Student 2 information about confidential School administrative matters and wrote to Student 2, among other things:

i. “This has to stay in the vault”;

ii. “U can’t say anything”;

iii. in trying to determine which student had complained about a teacher in the School’s [XXX] department, “This may sound racist but what other black kids r in that class[?] … Cuz whoever complained is related to the superintendent who is black”;

(b) made inappropriate comments about Student 1 to Student 2, including but not limited to:

i. “Who’s the kid u hate [?]”;

ii. “Well I won’t put up with his BS”;

iii. “I have the shit head next sem[ester];

iv. “I have no patience for entitled little brats…”;

(c) encouraged Student 2’s proposed violent behaviour toward Student 1 by responding, “Do it!!” when Student 2 stated that she “nearly clocked [Student 1]”;

(d) encouraged Student 2 to complain about the School’s [XXX] department by stating, “U guys better be complaining about [XXX]. Cuz we have an issue here and I’m pissed”;

(e) displayed preferential treatment toward Student 2 and Student 3 by stating that she was “putting [Student 2] and [Student 3] as first priority for switching [XXX] classes”; and

(f) made disparaging comments about another teacher at the School to Student 2, including saying to Student 2: “I can’t stand him.”

Student 1 became aware of the Member’s social media communications with Student 2 when another student provided screenshots of these conversations to Student 1. On or about April 4, 2017, Student 1’s parents contacted the School’s principal to share their concerns about these communications.
On May 15, 2017, the Board issued a letter of discipline to the Member. After investigating the matter, the Board concluded that the Member “made comments that were detrimental to the physical and emotional well-being of Student [1],” “spoke critically about teacher colleagues” and “knowingly engaged in communication that was inappropriate relative to the boundaries of acceptable teacher-student interaction.” Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “B” is a copy of the Board’s discipline letter dated May 15, 2017.
The Board also administratively transferred the Member to another school, terminated the Member’s [XXX] as [XXX] and rendered her ineligible to hold a [XXX] within the Board until the 2018-2019 school year, and required that the Member provide proof that she has satisfactorily addressed her professional development needs with respect to professional boundaries, especially related to the use of electronic communication and social media.
The Member provided proof of completion of a three-hour course on Boundary Issues on June 28, 2017. Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “C” is a copy of a letter from the course provider to the Board dated June 29, 2017, confirming completion of this course.
Attached hereto and marked as Appendix “D” is a copy of the College’s Professional Advisory on the Use of Electronic Communication and Social Media.

GUILTY PLEA

By this document,² the Member admits the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1-9 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 her, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] 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; and

(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.

DECISION

Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraph (b) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsection 1(7) 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 May 6, 2019 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Member admitted the truth of the facts and appendices referred to in paragraphs 1 to 9 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She 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(7.2), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).

Paragraphs 4 and 6 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).

Paragraphs 4 and 6 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2).

Paragraphs 4 and 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 that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15).

Paragraphs 4 and 6 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).

Paragraphs 4 and 6 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).

JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY

Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3),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 impose the following terms, conditions, and limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, and the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:

(a) within 90 days of the date of the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order in this matter, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at her own expense, a course of instruction, pre-approved by the Registrar, regarding professional boundaries and the appropriate use of electronic communication and social media, subject to the following conditions:

(i) the Member shall provide to a course provider 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 Committee’s Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order;

(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course provider shall submit to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course provider 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 certificate from the course provider:

(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 May 6, 2019 the Committee accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty, as amended 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 the parties: Ontario College of Teachers v. Bagshaw, 2018 ONOCT 54, Ontario College of Teachers v. Erland, 2017 ONOCT 54, Ontario College of Teachers v. Webster, 2015 ONOCT 86, Ontario College of Teachers v. Gillott, 2016 ONOCT 17 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Sergeant, 2018 ONOCT 44.

The Committee finds that, among other things, the Member’s inappropriate communication with students through social media, her inappropriate comments about students and her colleague, and her preferential treatment towards certain students warrant a reprimand by her peers. Members of the teaching profession are expected to maintain professional boundaries with students at all times and to behave as role models. The Member failed to meet these expectations by making disparaging comments about students and a colleague, and by encouraging a student to act violently. Members of the profession are also expected to treat students equitably and with respect. It is completely inappropriate for a member to make demeaning comments about one student to another student. 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.

The Committee notes that the Member had completed a three-hour course on Boundary Issues on June 28, 2017. The Committee finds that a course of instruction regarding professional boundaries and the appropriate use of electronic communication and social media will further 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.

The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.

Date: May 9, 2019

Rebecca Forte, OCT

Chair, Discipline Panel