DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
Citation: Ontario College of Teachers v Laforge 2019 ONOCT 43
Date: 2019-06-03
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
Terry Ann M. Laforge, OCT, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
TERRY ANN M. LAFORGE (REGISTRATION #204242)
PANEL: John Hamilton, OCT, Chair Marlène Marwah Sara Nouini, OCT
HEARD: June 3, 2019
Ava Arbuck of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers
Heather Ann McConnell of Goldblatt Partners LLP, for Terry Ann M. Laforge
Julie Maciura 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 June 3, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated July 31, 2017 (Exhibit 1) was served on Terry Ann M. Laforge (the “Member”), requesting her presence on August 30, 2017 to set a date for hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for June 3, 2019.
The Member did not attend the hearing, but she did attend by videoconference to receive a reprimand immediately following the hearing. She had legal representation throughout the hearing. 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 Terry Ann M. Laforge is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teacher’s 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);
(c) she abused a student or students physically, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.1);
(d) she abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);
(e) she practised or purported to practise the profession while under the influence of any substance or while adversely affected by any dysfunction, which the member knew or ought to have known impaired her ability to practise, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(8);
(f) she failed to supervise adequately a student or students who are under the professional supervision of the member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11);
(g) 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);
(h) she contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to the member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16);
(i) she committed an act or omission 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
(j) she 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:
Terry Ann M. Laforge 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 respecting the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the Thames Valley District School Board (the “Board”) as a teacher at [XXX] School or [XXX] School in London, Ontario.
October 2010: [XXX] School
- In October 2010, the Member called a student and/or students “moron” and/or “you two morons”. This was inappropriate.
2011-2012 Academic Year: [XXX] School
The Member wrongly shared confidential information about student placements for the following year.
The Member left students unsupervised while she completed Development Reading Assessment with individual students. This was inappropriate.
In February 2012, the Member texted her [XXX], who was a student at [XXX]. The parent of the student asked the Member to stop, but she continued to do so. This was inappropriate.
2012-2013 Academic Year: [XXX] School
The Member made inappropriate statements to students and/or others about the Principal’s sexual orientation.
The Member made comments to students about another student who was bullying others and told students to stay away from that particular student. This was inappropriate.
The Member took a student home for lunch without parental permission to do so. This was inappropriate.
The Member sent a parent text messages regarding the fact that the parent spoke to the Principal about her behaviour at school. The parent considered these text messages to be threatening. This was inappropriate.
The Member engaged in inappropriate electronic communication with students, which included but were not limited to:
(a) “You won’t be my [XXX] anymore”;
(b) “Why don’t you use your English accent”;
(c) “Thanks for turning on me”.
2014-2015 Academic Year: [XXX] School
In or about September 2014, the Member encouraged Student 1 and Student 2, who were Grade [XXX] male students in her class to engage in a physical fight. The Member told Student 1 and Student 2, “You just need to get this out of your system and go at it”. She then sent both students into the hallway to “go at it”. This was inappropriate.
In and around December 2014, the Member left students unsupervised in order to return home to retrieve medication. The Member ought to have arranged for supervision prior to leaving.
On or about December 17, 2014, the Member attended a 9:00 a.m. meeting with Board officials while under the influence of alcohol. The Member was placed on leave. Attached as Exhibit “B” is a copy of a letter from the Superintendent of Student Achievement to the Member dated December 19, 2014.
2015-2016 Academic Year: [XXX] School
The Member came back from her leave and began teaching at [XXX] as of September 2015.
On or about October 20, 2015, the Member provided false information to the Principal of the school about the nature of criminal charges brought against her. She falsely told the Principal that she got into a car accident and was charged with reckless driving. In fact, the Member was charged with driving while impaired by alcohol.
The Member also provided false information to the Principal of the school that on September 30, 2015 she was late in arriving to work because she was running late. In fact, the Member had been stopped by police for speeding.
On or about November 3, 2015, the Member pled guilty to:
(a) operating a motor vehicle while impaired, contrary to subsection 253(1) (a) of the Criminal Code (Canada)
The Member was fined, given one year of probation and her license was suspended for a period of one year.
On November 5, 2015, the Member attended a 9:00 a.m. meeting with Board officials under the influence of alcohol. The Member was again placed on leave.
The Member returned to work on February 1, 2016.
On or about February 1, 2016, Student 3, who was a Grade [XXX] male student of the school, was running in the hall and the Member grabbed his shirt and caused him to fall to the ground. This action was inappropriate.
On or about February 16, 2016, the Member took a cab to work. Upon leaving the cab, the Member made a racist and offensive comment to the cab driver and said words to the effect of, “go back to your country”. This comment was inappropriate.
On or about February 17, 2016, the Member provided a supply teacher covering her Grade [XXX] class the documentary [XXX] by [XXX] to be shown to the class which was inappropriate. Attached as Exhibit “C” is a copy of a letter from the Superintendent of Student Achievement to the Member dated February 22, 2016.
The Member was placed on leave from the Board on February 18, 2016.
The Member has given up her position with the Board as a result of her ongoing medical difficulties. The Member has entered into an Undertaking with the College with respect to her ongoing medical difficulties. The Member agrees that submissions will be made to the Committee with respect to the Undertaking.
Plea of No Contest
By this document,1 the Member agrees that the Discipline Committee can accept as correct the facts and the exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 26 above (the “Uncontested Facts”).
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 her being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(7), 1(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(8), 1(11), 1(15), 1(16), 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 Uncontested Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) she understands that by pleading no contest to the allegations, she is waiving the right to require the College to otherwise prove the case against her and the right to have a hearing;
(d) she understands that the Committee can accept the Uncontested Facts as correct, and can accept that those facts constitute professional misconduct.
(e) 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 his/her name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(f) she understands that any agreement between counsel for the College and herself with respect to the penalty proposed does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(g) she understands and acknowledges that she 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 June 3, 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(7.1), 1(7.2), 1(8), 1(11), 1(15), 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member did not contest the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 26 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest and pleaded no contest to the allegations of professional misconduct against her. She 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(8), 1(11), 1(15), 1(16), 1(18) and 1(19).
Paragraphs 3-14, 16-18, 20, 22-24 and 28 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 3, 8 and 28 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 22 and 28 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).
Paragraphs 3, 7-8, 11, 22 and 28 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 14, 20 and 28 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member practised or purported to practise the profession while under the influence of any substance or while adversely affected by any dysfunction, which the Member knew or ought to have known impaired her ability to practise, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(8).
Paragraphs 5, 12, 13 and 28 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member failed to supervise adequately a student or students who are under the professional supervision of the Member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(11).
Paragraphs 3-14, 16-18, 20, 22-24, 28 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 18 and 28 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member contravened a law, the contravention of which is relevant to the Member’s suitability to hold a certificate of qualification and registration, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(16).
Paragraphs 3-9, 11-14, 16-17, 20, 22 and 28 of the Statement of Uncontested Facts and Plea of No Contest demonstrate that the Member committed an act or omission 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 6, 10, 18, 23-24 and 28 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 person2 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 one month commencing on the 1st day of September, 2019 following the Oral Decision and 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 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(s) of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding appropriate boundaries and supervision, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to the course practitioner(s) 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) following review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner(s) will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course(s) which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner(s) shall also specify the length of the course(s) to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;
(b) within 30 days of [her] completion of the course(s) outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner(s) which:
(i) confirms that the Member has successfully completed the course(s) and reports on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course(s).
UNDERTAKING AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT
On May 30, 2019 the Member entered into an Undertaking and Acknowledgment with the College which sets out conditions which must be met before the Member can hold a position for which a Certificate of Qualification and Registration is required. The Undertaking and Acknowledgment was made an exhibit at the hearing (Exhibit 4).
PENALTY DECISION
In an oral decision rendered on June 3, 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 Committee further recognizes that the Member has agreed to a number of obligations in her Undertaking and Acknowledgment.
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, including the fact that she entered into the Undertaking and Acknowledgment. This case presents a relatively unique constellation of factors for the Committee’s determination on penalty. The following cases presented by College Counsel set out similar approaches to penalty in somewhat similar circumstances, including where an undertaking and acknowledgment was made by the Member: Ontario College of Teachers v. Bryant, 2014 ONOCT 12, and Ontario College of Teachers v. Emrich, 2018 ONOCT 35.
The Committee finds that the Member’s conduct warrants a reprimand by her peers. The Committee is troubled that the Member engaged in an ongoing pattern of inappropriate conduct, including making inappropriate comments to students, failing to maintain professional boundaries, encouraging pupils to fight, attending meetings while under the influence of alcohol, causing a student to fall to the ground, and making a racist comment to a taxi driver. 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.
Given the ongoing and repeated nature and severity of the Member’s conduct, the Committee finds that a one-month suspension is reasonable and appropriate. While the cases presented are factually distinct from this case, the misconduct represented in those cases is of a similar underlying nature and confirm that a suspension is justified. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member and a general deterrent to other members of the profession, making clear that the kind of misconduct the Member exhibited is reprehensible.
The Committee finds that the course(s) of instruction regarding appropriate boundaries and supervision 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, parents and community members. The Committee is satisfied that the terms, conditions or limitations imposed, in conjunction with the Member’s voluntary Undertaking and Acknowledgment, adequately respond to the concerns presented by the Member’s conduct in this case and will protect the public interest.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: June 3, 2019
John Hamilton, OCT
Chair, Discipline Panel
Marlène Marwah
Member, Discipline Panel
Sara Nouini, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel